PDA

View Full Version : F6F Speeds



R_Target
01-22-2007, 06:20 PM
The old thread was lost in the forum crash, so I've reconstituted it.

I'm posting this in hopes of getting the F6F speeds corrected.

Primary sources for F6F speeds include: the postwar "Standard Aircraft Characteristics" testing (available here (http://history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf)), a 1943 F6F-3 test by the US Army (availablehere (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-25820.pdf)), a 1944 comparative evaluation between F6F, F4U, and FW 190 (available here (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm)), a 1944 comparative evaluation against A6M Model 52 (available here (http://home.att.net/%7Ehistoryworld/TAICzero.pd)), as well as documents posted by other participants in the old thread.

First, the results of my testing. All runs were made on the Crimea map at noon, 100% fuel, radiators closed,
elevator and rudder trimmed, full power and WEP, for ~5 minutes after speed and altitude were stabilized. TAS from gauges in no-cockpit view.

Alt.(feet) kph mph knots

SL 521 323 281
3k 521 323 281
5k 516 320 278
7k 518 321 279
9k 530 329 286
10k 541 336 292
12k 554 344 299
14k 571 354 308
15k 579 359 312
16k 585 363 315
18k 593 368 320
20k 611 379 329
22k 619 384 334
25k 615 382 332
30k 591 367 319


Now, the real-life tests:

From Navaer Standard Aircraft Characteristics test of "F6F-3 and F6F-5 airplanes." Number "2" is Combat power:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9577/graphnomarkha4.gif

US Army 1943 test of an F6F-3 without water injection:

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/8808/f6ff3perf5xy.jpg

From F4U/F6F/FW 190 comparative evaluation. Altitudes are 200ft., 5000ft., 10,000ft., 15,000ft., 20,000ft., 25,000ft.:

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6638/comptestme7.gif

From the TAIC Zeke 52 report:

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1479/taictestcg7.gif

All four of these tests indicate faster speeds than the F6F in IL2/PF. For a rough comparison, I plotted PF performance against
the Navaer graph: PF performance in red:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2983/graphnavaerkh6.gif

F4U/FW 190 evaluation test results in green:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/822/graphnavf4f6190ps1.gif

I didn't attempt to graph the results from the Zeke 52 report because only the top speed is given; all other results
are in comparison to the Zeke which was not equipped with water injection. Please note that I don't consider my
additions to the Navaer chart as exact, although I think it gives a fair approximation.

Also note that the Navaer test was performed on a "second line fighter and trainer":

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/4875/2ndline2jh.jpg

And that that the engine in the Navaer test is only rated at 2,030HP at SL

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/286/hpf6fnav4ot.jpg

Whereas the F6F-5 with R2800-10W is rated at 2250HP at SL:

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4577/mof6hp4if.jpg

Another data sheet showing F6F-5 top speeds with 2250HP at SL :

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/3808/alliedchrt6ak.jpg

Listing of F6F engines and HP from Francis Dean's America's 100,00

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/9526/scan7pn.jpg

My conclusion is that, at most altitudes, the PF Hellcat is performing below the levels of the lowest performing
tests (Navaer "Standard Aircraft Characteristics") I could find. Also please note that the Navaer test is a postwar
test and shows a lower HP rating than a wartime F6F-5 with water injection system, and that the weight indicated is approximately 300lbs. heavier than other sources.

Hopefully this issue can be addressed.

stansdds
01-23-2007, 04:04 AM
It will be addressed about the same time we get a Solomon Islands map and correct weapons loadouts for USN/USMC aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Marcel_Albert
01-23-2007, 08:18 AM
Yes , the Hellcat ingame seems about 20 kph slower than the real life figures at every altitude , which is strange since it had the powerful R-2800 and was lighter than the Corsair.

This said , it's not a whine , just a notice , i really like the Hellcat and very happy and grateful that Oleg put it in game , perhaps i don't have all the informations and my comment is wrong and mistaken , but if not , it'd be really cool that its top speed gets fine tuned for the next patch to meet better real life figures http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

R_Target
01-26-2007, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
Yes , the Hellcat ingame seems about 20 kph slower than the real life figures at every altitude , which is strange since it had the powerful R-2800 and was lighter than the Corsair.

This said , it's not a whine , just a notice , i really like the Hellcat and very happy and grateful that Oleg put it in game , perhaps i don't have all the informations and my comment is wrong and mistaken , but if not , it'd be really cool that its top speed gets fine tuned for the next patch to meet better real life figures http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yes a fix would be nice. It's quite a disparity.

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 11:20 AM
R_Target is the Fw 190 included in those charts you posted? I keep seeing it refered to but no data

R_Target
01-26-2007, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
R_Target is the Fw 190 included in those charts you posted? I keep seeing it refered to but no data

Yes. I clipped it out but linked the whole thing, mainly because I'm trying to focus on the F6F speeds achieved without inviting any debate on the 190, it's condition during the tests, or the results obtained.

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 12:10 PM
rgr will look at link.

+1 on speeds

Aaron_GT
01-27-2007, 01:13 AM
Also note that the Navaer test was performed on a "second line fighter and trainer":

Since the test was post war that might be a comment on the type rather than the condition or usage of that particular aircraft, perhaps? I.e. that aircraft might be performing as expected given the engine power available.

What is line 3 in the Navaer graph (the one that seems to correspond closely with in-game performance)?

NeilStirling
01-27-2007, 02:54 AM
More Hellcat performance data here

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f.html

Neil.

R_Target
01-27-2007, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also note that the Navaer test was performed on a "second line fighter and trainer":

Since the test was post war that might be a comment on the type rather than the condition or usage of that particular aircraft, perhaps? I.e. that aircraft might be performing as expected given the engine power available.

What is line 3 in the Navaer graph (the one that seems to correspond closely with in-game performance)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Line 3 is Military power.

JG53Frankyboy
01-27-2007, 12:12 PM
oh, yes, better performance for at least the F6F-5 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and perhaps the F6F-3 with the lesser performance as now ?? even if its called "late" and have waterinjection http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

MAILMAN------
01-28-2007, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
Yes , the Hellcat ingame seems about 20 kph slower than the real life figures at every altitude , which is strange since it had the powerful R-2800 and was lighter than the Corsair.

This said , it's not a whine , just a notice , i really like the Hellcat and very happy and grateful that Oleg put it in game , perhaps i don't have all the informations and my comment is wrong and mistaken , but if not , it'd be really cool that its top speed gets fine tuned for the next patch to meet better real life figures http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Hellcat is a heavier aircraft than the Corsair. See below:

F6F-3 Empty weight 9042 Lbs
F6F-5 Empty weight 9238 Lbs
F4U-1D Empty weight 8873

Aaron_GT
01-28-2007, 02:01 AM
R_Target: Your red line for in game performance - what power settings did you use? If it was mil power (or equivalent) it would seem it matches the Navaer graph pretty well, just that the aircraft used in that test might have had slightly restricted engine power. So it might be that the 1C team has simply accurately modelled slightly wrong data...

If the red line you plotted was WEP then there is more to be concerned about.

JG53Frankyboy
01-28-2007, 06:53 AM
"First, the results of my testing. All runs were made on the Crimea map at noon, 100% fuel, radiators closed,
elevator and rudder trimmed, full power and WEP, for ~5 minutes after speed and altitude were stabilized. TAS from gauges in no-cockpit view."


and btw, according to Oleg , any tests made at setting lower than max power are useless in game.
100% in game cant be compared lets say to Military in real...............

WarWolfe_1
01-28-2007, 07:25 PM
I have long said that the R-2800 in this sim is undermodeled. That goes for damage as well as speed, climb rate, just to name a few.

This goes for the F4U, P-47, and Hellcat.

ICDP
01-29-2007, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
I have long said that the R-2800 in this sim is undermodeled. That goes for damage as well as speed, climb rate, just to name a few.

This goes for the F4U, P-47, and Hellcat.

The climbrate for the F6F and F4U are completely spot on in IL2 PF. Though as posted here the F6F is too slow at quite a few altitudes. Please test your aircraft in the sim before making such grossly inaccurate BS. Statements like these coming from obviously biased people who have no tests and data to back them up are NOT helping to get real problems fixed.

WarWolfe_1
01-29-2007, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
I have long said that the R-2800 in this sim is undermodeled. That goes for damage as well as speed, climb rate, just to name a few.

This goes for the F4U, P-47, and Hellcat.


The climbrate for the F6F and F4U are completely spot on in IL2 PF. Though as posted here the F6F is too slow at quite a few altitudes. Please test your aircraft in the sim before making such grossly inaccurate BS. Statements like these coming from obviously biased people who have no tests and data to back them up are NOT helping to get real problems fixed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Testy....Before you try flaming people remeber what a PM is. Also remeber that flaimg isn't going to get the PROBLEMS Fixed, only get the thread locked.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-29-2007, 09:39 PM
He's right though. There's nothing undermodeled about the corsair. If anything, it's got TOO much visibility over the nose (in game is worse than an F6F, which is wrong), and is TOO easy to land on a carrier (again, easier than an F6F, which is totally bass ackwards), and is less snap spin prone (which the F6F shouldn't be AT ALL).

ICDP
01-30-2007, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
I have long said that the R-2800 in this sim is undermodeled. That goes for damage as well as speed, climb rate, just to name a few.

This goes for the F4U, P-47, and Hellcat.
The climbrate for the F6F and F4U are completely spot on in IL2 PF. Though as posted here the F6F is too slow at quite a few altitudes. Please test your aircraft in the sim before making such grossly inaccurate BS. Statements like these coming from obviously biased people who have no tests and data to back them up are NOT helping to get real problems fixed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Testy....Before you try flaming people remeber what a PM is. Also remeber that flaimg isn't going to get the PROBLEMS Fixed, only get the thread locked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry for my rash response Warwolfe. I guess I am trying to say that general statements based on nothing but opinion that the F6F, F4U and P47 are all screwed in IL2 is not helping the cause of this thread. I have completed countless hours of testing and research on the F6F and F4U in this sim compared to RL. I have found the F4U to be very well modelled since the yaw problems were fixed. The F6F is completely accurate in climb but is around 15mph too slow at most altitudes.

So by my testing and comparison to real data the F6F and F4U are not as porked as you make out in your original post.

Scen
01-30-2007, 10:46 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
01-31-2007, 08:16 AM
Hey Ivan, you posted in El's thread about the Ki-43 that it was "reported". Any word on this issue?

BlitzPig_DDT
01-31-2007, 12:36 PM
R_Target, have you emailed these facts to Oleg directly? (I'm sure you have, but was curious, and wanted to bump the thread)

ICDP
01-31-2007, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
R_Target, have you emailed these facts to Oleg directly? (I'm sure you have, but was curious, and wanted to bump the thread)

I posted quite a bit of data and test result form the sim to the devs ealreir this month. I haven't had a reply yet, nor do I expect one. I think they are just to busy.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-31-2007, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
R_Target, have you emailed these facts to Oleg directly? (I'm sure you have, but was curious, and wanted to bump the thread)

I posted quite a bit of data and test result form the sim to the devs ealreir this month. I haven't had a reply yet, nor do I expect one. I think they are just to busy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posted? Here? Or emailed?

Squeaky wheel gets the grease. They will be "too busy" to correct this plane (which was only close to right in the shipping version of PF and has been hosed ever since) unless we keep banging away to make it known just how important it is, in and of itself, to this game, and to us (the community).

ICDP
01-31-2007, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
R_Target, have you emailed these facts to Oleg directly? (I'm sure you have, but was curious, and wanted to bump the thread)

I posted quite a bit of data and test result form the sim to the devs ealreir this month. I haven't had a reply yet, nor do I expect one. I think they are just to busy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posted? Here? Or emailed?

Squeaky wheel gets the grease. They will be "too busy" to correct this plane (which was only close to right in the shipping version of PF and has been hosed ever since) unless we keep banging away to make it known just how important it is, in and of itself, to this game, and to us (the community). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both. I posted here and sent of an e-mail.

The F6F was not close in the release version of PF. In fact it was further form real performance than the current version. Going from memory it was around 40 or 50mph too fast at its rated altitude and it was about 30 or 40 seconds too fast to 20,000ft. The current version is too slow but the climbrate is accurate. I would love to see it fixed but if I had a choince between the current one or the grossly overmodelled version from the release of PF, I would choose the current one.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-31-2007, 06:40 PM
The *important* behavior was much closer - it didn't spin every time it stalled, or stall if you blinked hard, it held on to a bit of E and wasn't pulling a drag chute.

Oh and incidentally it was better at trapping too. (something else that actually matters - due to better ability to land hard (which BTW - the real one survived a 21 foot static drop from the top of the Grumman hangar) and fly slow)

It was *hardly* "grossly overmodeled". 30 seconds over a huge distance like 20,000 is a small error. And.... if the speed is corrected, the climb rate will get a slight bump.

None of the planes are dead accurate in all areas, all of them have slight errors plus or minus in various places. For this aircraft, speed, E-retention, and it's ability to turn and not snap spin (and slow stall speed and stout landing gear) are of far greater importance.

Yes - the PF out of box version of the F6F was far more accurate (in the areas that matter) than this one.

ICDP
02-01-2007, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The *important* behavior was much closer - it didn't spin every time it stalled, or stall if you blinked hard, it held on to a bit of E and wasn't pulling a drag chute.

Oh and incidentally it was better at trapping too. (something else that actually matters - due to better ability to land hard (which BTW - the real one survived a 21 foot static drop from the top of the Grumman hangar) and fly slow)

It was *hardly* "grossly overmodeled". 30 seconds over a huge distance like 20,000 is a small error. And.... if the speed is corrected, the climb rate will get a slight bump.

None of the planes are dead accurate in all areas, all of them have slight errors plus or minus in various places. For this aircraft, speed, E-retention, and it's ability to turn and not snap spin (and slow stall speed and stout landing gear) are of far greater importance.

Yes - the PF out of box version of the F6F was far more accurate (in the areas that matter) than this one.

30 or 40 seconds in climb to 20,000 is the equivelant of half a kilometre in altitude. Also the 430+mph top speed is not close to accurate. Imagine the A6M5 having a top speed of 400mph and an 7% boost in climbrate. Would you be saying that it doesn't matter because it seems to fly ok?

The truth is the FM is a collection of many part. Handling is one and performance is another. If either one is massively wrong then the other is moot. Lets just agree that both versions of the F6F are wrong and hope they get it fixed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
02-01-2007, 08:25 AM
Agree that this version is wrong and needs to be fixed? Yes.

The rest, not even close. 10% is considered the acceptable margine of error. 7% is therefore acceptable. Over is better than under since many aircraft are over (the original allied aircraft, if ya know what I mean).

It was a true 400mph plane. Once again, 430 is about 7%. So, as stated, it was HARDLY "grossly overmodeled", and was in fact, closer. As for your Zero example, so long as it was within 10% and the F6F was still faster so that it could extend, then it would not be a problem.

But, either way, yeah, the pertinant point is that what we have now is too slow and should be fixed.

ICDP
02-01-2007, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Agree that this version is wrong and needs to be fixed? Yes.

The rest, not even close. 10% is considered the acceptable margine of error. 7% is therefore acceptable. Over is better than under since many aircraft are over (the original allied aircraft, if ya know what I mean).

It was a true 400mph plane. Once again, 430 is about 7%. So, as stated, it was HARDLY "grossly overmodeled", and was in fact, closer. As for your Zero example, so long as it was within 10% and the F6F was still faster so that it could extend, then it would not be a problem.

But, either way, yeah, the pertinant point is that what we have now is too slow and should be fixed.

Actually the acceptable margin for error was and is 3%. I have seen many people whine for scores of pages because they feel the Bf109 or Spitifre are overmodelled by less than the F6F was. In fact a 40 second increase in climb to 20,000ft is around 9% overmodelled, the 30mph extra speed is 7-8% overmodelled. The release version of PF had an F6F with a 9% boost in climbrate and a 7-8% boost in speed, it was also rediculously stall prone. The current 4.071 F6F is completely accurate in climbrate and too slow by 3.5%. It is also incredibly agile for such a heavy fighter and matches real descriptions of its handling quite well IMHO. The only thing that need fixed is its slow speed that is just outside acceptable accuracy according to the 3% rule.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-01-2007, 10:59 AM
10 and 5 % were the figures that have been tossed around. You just feel it necessary to get the last word. lol

The shipping version of PF's F6F was NOT stall prone. Did you even fly it? The Pigs were hardpressed to get me OUT of it once I finally got my hands on an F6F in this sim (and given my druthers, I'd pick it every time, just not the snap spinning POS piss poor excuse we have now).

Your figures are off anyway, and you can't compare the 109 and Spitfire because you are talking about red-whiners vs blue whiners. People who don't care about their own plane, just that the *other guys* plane should be worse than it is (no matter how bad it is). Hell, you STILL have people saying the G6 is perfect or "overmodeled" (a term which itself is overmodeled) just because they hate LW planes and flyers. Totally inconsequential to this issue. (Nevermind that the VVS is erred on the plus side in nearly every case while the LW was, for the longest time, and in some cases, still is, erred on the negative side which created too much disparity. It's odd that you would hold this up as a postive.)

The plane had NO bad habits IRL. It flew like a trainer. It could get airborne in increadibly little distance, was amazingly agile, had a ridiculously slow stall speed, and could crash land onto the deck and not break (think about how high a 21 foot static drop onto it's gear really is). It was the perfect carrier fighter. And the perfect Zero killer.

What we have can't fly slow enough, stalls if you blink too hard, and tries to spin every time it stalls, and has gear made of toothpicks - if you trap and bounce 4 or 5 feet off the deck, you smash your gear. Should never happen. Never mind being too slow. Ultimately, it's the perfect USN pilot killer. NOT what the real plane was.

In every single one of those aspects, the original PF version was much closer to what it should be than what it is now. (you're also singling one plane out in a doublestandard, others are getting what you call "unacceptable" free rides. Go crow about them.)

Fixing the speed will correct SOME of these issues. You DID say you wanted to leave it at that, so, by all means....

crazyivan1970
02-01-2007, 11:07 AM
R_Target, submit the doc to pf@1c.ru with all your findings please.

BfHeFwMe
02-01-2007, 11:29 AM
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/f6f-56.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/f6f-57.jpg

Talk is cheap, here's my contribution. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ICDP
02-01-2007, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
10 and 5 % were the figures that have been tossed around. You just feel it necessary to get the last word. lol

The shipping version of PF's F6F was NOT stall prone. Did you even fly it? The Pigs were hardpressed to get me OUT of it once I finally got my hands on an F6F in this sim (and given my druthers, I'd pick it every time, just not the snap spinning POS piss poor excuse we have now).

Your figures are off anyway, and you can't compare the 109 and Spitfire because you are talking about red-whiners vs blue whiners. People who don't care about their own plane, just that the *other guys* plane should be worse than it is (no matter how bad it is). Hell, you STILL have people saying the G6 is perfect or "overmodeled" (a term which itself is overmodeled) just because they hate LW planes and flyers. Totally inconsequential to this issue. (Nevermind that the VVS is erred on the plus side in nearly every case while the LW was, for the longest time, and in some cases, still is, erred on the negative side which created too much disparity. It's odd that you would hold this up as a postive.)

The plane had NO bad habits IRL. It flew like a trainer. It could get airborne in increadibly little distance, was amazingly agile, had a ridiculously slow stall speed, and could crash land onto the deck and not break (think about how high a 21 foot static drop onto it's gear really is). It was the perfect carrier fighter. And the perfect Zero killer.

What we have can't fly slow enough, stalls if you blink too hard, and tries to spin every time it stalls, and has gear made of toothpicks - if you trap and bounce 4 or 5 feet off the deck, you smash your gear. Should never happen. Never mind being too slow. Ultimately, it's the perfect USN pilot killer. NOT what the real plane was.

In every single one of those aspects, the original PF version was much closer to what it should be than what it is now. (you're also singling one plane out in a doublestandard, others are getting what you call "unacceptable" free rides. Go crow about them.)

Fixing the speed will correct SOME of these issues. You DID say you wanted to leave it at that, so, by all means....

Well I am delighted that Oleg "fixed" the original F6F and F4U partly due to my testing results that showed stage 3 supercharger and 110% fuel mix MASSIVELY overboosted the aircraft to UFO levels. Or we would possbily still be flying that UFO today.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-01-2007, 01:17 PM
You clearly have no concept of what a "ufo" is. And you just tipped your hand that you just have the F6F stuck in your craw and don't care about how bad off any of the other planes are. As stated, a double standard.

And as proven, a desire to get the last word. lol

The F4U has virtually no drag and infinite E retention, doesn't stall or spin much at all, has no nasty stall habits when it does stall, has too much over the nose visibility, and is too easy to land on a carrier.

If you're so concerned about planes being overmodeled, start there.

Either way, you're 100% wrong about the original version of the F6F. (and still not letting it go as you yourself suggested. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

ICDP
02-01-2007, 02:34 PM
The truth is that I want the F6F fixed because it is wrong in performance and we can prove it. The handling seems good to me but I wouldn't know apart form what I have read. There are many aircraft such as the F4U that have handling that doesn't seem to match the real reports but they have correct speed/climb performance. Therefore I can't get quantifiable data to show how they are (IMHO) wrong because I have no basis to go on. So many aircraft don't even suffer any meaningfull torque but others have bucket loads of it (compare the F4U to the F2A2).

It is easier for us to say "hey Oleg this speed is wrong" because we can get charts to prove it. From my experience going to him with nothing but an opinion on handling with no charts/data doesn't get things changed.

We can only hope the data I sent and that R_Target sent gets the F6F fixed to be a 400mph aircraft. We have different opinions on how it should handle, so who is correct because data can be found to support both "opinions". The speed/climb on the otherhand is easy to argue about since data/tests are easy to find.

BfHeFwMe
02-01-2007, 05:01 PM
BP-DDT, if you want the NACA handling data, PM me, I've got the docs. They have everything you could possibly want to know, text and charts. Than you won't have to go on feelings like the beta testers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ivankuturkokoff
02-02-2007, 01:31 PM
The graphs in this thread give a Sea level F6F5 speed of 265Knots (304Mph/490Kmh). The Tabular data 276Knots (317mph/510Kmh)

In Crimea sea Level 50% Fuel Clean F6F5, Rad closed Max power and trimmed out I get 278Knot (319Mph/514Kmh)

Pretty close to the graphed and tabular values.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-02-2007, 02:56 PM
Actually they state it at 330 and up, see page one. The chart listed on this page is incorrect as it is showing the second-line, derated status. This was covered in a previous thread, and on page one. Please dig a little deeper before posting charts or claiming everything is fine (when it's not).

ivankuturkokoff
02-02-2007, 03:41 PM
DDT no need for Venom I havent posted a single chart or claimed "everything is all right" I mearly pointed out what I achieved in test compared with the Multiple charts i.e the majority of quoted refrences in this thread,etc

The 330 mph you refer to is a single refrence on the first page of this thread in the tabular data ... if I have missed something please correct me.

Viewing ALL the links shown by the topic starter in his opening post reveals the same.

To add a few more more references "Americas 100,000" Page 555 gives about 315mph at Sea Level.

Also "Flying to the Limit" Page 193 quotes some
RN test data giving max speed (albeit at 2000feet) as 315 mph. This being the same test refrerred to in the link to WWIIaircraft performance.

So its the usual thing multiple refrences give differing values. Oleg has to choose a refrence.
it seems to me the refrence used agrees with most of the common published data.

Why did I even bother sticking my head up in this post ? Well I have direct input into FM's in this SIM and communicate with Oleg on an almost daily basis. I try to watch every FM debate that starts on the forums with the aim of improving the Sim and getting each aircraft to behave as close to real world performance as is possible within the Sims limitations.

ICDP
02-02-2007, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:
The graphs in this thread give a Sea level F6F5 speed of 265Knots (304Mph/490Kmh). The Tabular data 276Knots (317mph/510Kmh)

In Crimea sea Level 50% Fuel Clean F6F5, Rad closed Max power and trimmed out I get 278Knot (319Mph/514Kmh)

Pretty close to the graphed and tabular values.

Most sources I have show around 330mph at SL. The IL2 version gets 225-326mph so it is quite accurate. It is at 2000ft and over that the IL2 F6F starts to fall behind even the derated speeds. It is not until 20,000ft that the F6F in IL2 only matches the derated F6F speeds. What we have in IL2 is an F6F that can barely match the speeds of a postwar derated F6F runing at slightly over 10% less power than a WWII fully rated F6F.

I used to think the F6F was spot on because I was using the data from the derated F6F to base my tests on. Have a look for data for the R2800-10W equipped F6F for actual performance values.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-02-2007, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:
DDT no need for Venom I havent posted a single chart or claimed "everything is all right" I mearly pointed out what I achieved in test compared with the Multiple charts i.e the majority of quoted refrences in this thread,etc

The 330 mph you refer to is a single refrence on the first page of this thread in the tabular data ... if I have missed something please correct me.

Viewing ALL the links shown by the topic starter in his opening post reveals the same.

To add a few more more references "Americas 100,000" Page 555 gives about 315mph at Sea Level.

Also "Flying to the Limit" Page 193 quotes some
RN test data giving max speed (albeit at 2000feet) as 315 mph. This being the same test refrerred to in the link to WWIIaircraft performance.

So its the usual thing multiple refrences give differing values. Oleg has to choose a refrence.
it seems to me the refrence used agrees with most of the common published data.

Why did I even bother sticking my head up in this post ? Well I have direct input into FM's in this SIM and communicate with Oleg on an almost daily basis. I try to watch every FM debate that starts on the forums with the aim of improving the Sim and getting each aircraft to behave as close to real world performance as is possible within the Sims limitations.

With a crude name like that and 96 posts, color me skeptical.

As for tone, there's a clear problem, and every time someone points it out about a US plane, we get people jumping in moaning about how "everything's fine".

It was also a post that was kinda referring to both you and 'the quaker' above you.

Guess R_Target just made it all up though, eh? Even though the post war de-rated speeds are closer to what we have than the documentaion he came up with. OR for that matter the commentary of the man who helped (via feedback) design the aircraft as well as test it and had an intimate relationship with it. It was a true 400mph plane. Ours, is not. (nevermind the weak landing gear and absolutely bogus stall and snap spin tendencies)

Aaron_GT
02-02-2007, 04:12 PM
I used to think the F6F was spot on because I was using the data from the derated F6F to base my tests on.

This is what makes me think that 1C simply used the incorrect (derated engine) data. If so it might be a quick fix to put the right engine power in (hopefully).

Has a bug report been logged with 1C?

ivankuturkokoff
02-02-2007, 05:39 PM
With a crude name like that and 96 posts, color me skeptical


There is a liitle bit of tongue in cheek "Cold war" history behind the name DDT that is dear to my heart.

DDT is pretty interesting to btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Take a look on Disk 2 of the 46 DVD for some more intell as to who I am and what I say I am. If you choose not to believe then thats your problem... if you are really in doubt then just ask crazy_Ivan or perhaps Oleg himself. Or spend a little time reading the credits for the Il2 series. My real name is Sean Trestrail and I do have a clue about aviation.

Where have I doubted Targets data in my post ?

BfHeFwMe I have the NACA stuff as it s so please disregard the PM

BfHeFwMe
02-02-2007, 05:43 PM
My second post had nothing to do with the charts, be that way. You don't want the NACA study on F-6F handling and stability, it's fine with me, go by your gut feeling. I'm sure you'll get everyone convinced and the job done that way.

I posted the chart specifically for stall speeds, and the extremely low wing loading for an American Fighter. Not my problem you forget you had a handling argument going.

See ya, bye. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

ivankuturkokoff
02-02-2007, 07:28 PM
Using this as the Refrence performance document:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/fn322-level.jpg

Max TAS I achieve in Flight Test (in upcoming 4.08 known as 4.072M in Beta form) 50% Fuel,Clean,Max Chat,Supercharger to achieve max MAP with water injection,Crimea Midday. Level accelerations flown +-100feet altitude.

18,900feet (max TAS altitude) is 604Kmh TAS 326Knots TAS, 375MPH TAS. Supercharger 3 (Reference gives 372MPH TAS)

At 4000feet Supercharger 2 (gave max MAP) I get 518Kmh TAS, 289Knots TAS, 322Mph TAS
(Reference gives 305MPH TAS)

At 10000feet (Supercharger 2 gave max MAP) I get 533Kmh TAS, 288Knots TAS, 331MPH TAS
(Reference gives 333MPH TAS)

So thats three sample Altitudes that agrees very closely with the refrence.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-02-2007, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
My second post had nothing to do with the charts, be that way. You don't want the NACA study on F-6F handling and stability, it's fine with me, go by your gut feeling. I'm sure you'll get everyone convinced and the job done that way.

I posted the chart specifically for stall speeds, and the extremely low wing loading for an American Fighter. Not my problem you forget you had a handling argument going.

See ya, bye. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

It IS your problem you decided to come off as a smart ***.

Try reading for comprehension. Nowhere has any "gut feeling" been stated or mentioned, that is entirely of your own creation. And part of your typical MO, so not surprising in the least.

R_Target
02-02-2007, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:
Max TAS at Full throttle height I achieve in Flight Test (in upcoming 4.08) 50% Fuel,Clean,Max Chat,Supercharger 3 with water injection,Crimea Midday at 18,900feet (max TAS altitude) is 604Kmh TAS 326Knots TAS, 375MPH TAS.

At 4000feet Supercharger 2 (gave max MAP) I get 518Kmh TAS, 289Knots TAS, 322Mph TAS

At 10000feet (Supercharger 2 gave max MAP) I get 533Kmh TAS, 288Knots TAS, 331MPH TAS

So thats thre sample Altitudes that agrees very closely with this ref :

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/fn322-level.jpg

Indeed. This is for a Hellcat I at 52.5" MAP (Military Power) with R-2800-10 without water injection producing 2000HP and is fairly consistent with other F6F-3 tests. F6F-5 with R2800-10W can run Combat Power at 60" MAP producing 2250 HP. The highest speed I have seen for F6F-5 is the 1944 TAIC evaluation on F6F-5 No. 58992:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1374/taicf6fqw2.gif

But this appears to me to be a particularly well performing F6F-5, as I haven't seen speeds that high in any other document.

The often quoted and printed figures (inluding America's 100,000) are usually based on the "Standard Aircraft Characteristics," which has several anomalies such as the 2030 HP rating, the note that the performance graphs are based on "F6F-3 and F6F-5 airplanes," and the lack of a Bureau # for any of the planes/plane(?), which usually features prominently in wartime tests. Additionally, the F6F is reported as a "second-line fighter and trainer," which doesn't seem appropriate to me if it's wartime performance being modeled. Francis Dean reports that this document is dated October 1950. Even if the Navair test was in full accord with the power ratings of other tests, the IL2 F6F would still be a significant 20mph too slow at 10,000 ft.

My conclusion is that the F6F-5 (and F6F-3 "late") do not have the extra power modeled.

Anyway, I have sent a bunch of documents to MG; it would be great to get a solution. Also, I don't have any real beef with the Hellcat besides the speed; handling, stalls, and so on seem to track reasonably close to what I've read.

ivankuturkokoff
02-02-2007, 08:29 PM
Have you had a reply from MG ref these documents ?

R_Target
02-02-2007, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:
Have you had a reply from MG ref these documents ?

I had previously only notified MG of the existence of this thread; CrazyIvan advised me earlier in the thread to pack up the docs and send them to MG, which I have just done tonight.

ivankuturkokoff
02-02-2007, 08:39 PM
Target check your PMs please

ivankuturkokoff
02-02-2007, 09:12 PM
Snip
"But this appears to me to be a particularly well performing F6F-5, as I haven't seen speeds that high in any other document."

"F6F-5 with R2800-10W can run Combat Power at 60" MAP producing 2250 HP. The highest speed I have seen for F6F-5 is the 1944 TAIC evaluation on F6F-5 No. 58992:"

I agree indeed it seems an exceptionally well performing Hellcat and maybe does not represent average performance.

Looking at this ref:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/jv224-b.pdf

Which is Hellcat II running with water at 60"MAP gives 375MPH TAS at 18,800 feet.

R_Target
02-02-2007, 10:10 PM
I noticed the low performance of that test. Their methods look thorough, but I don't know why the results are that weak. It's similar to what the other tests are reporting at 52.5".

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/8672/f6flevelbl1.jpg

RocketDog
02-03-2007, 02:41 AM
Target, have you got a version of your plot with the in-game performace plotted for comparison? I have to say, none of the numbers above get close to 400 mph. What am I missing?

Cheers,

RD.

ICDP
02-03-2007, 03:06 AM
The Chart linked to below shows a top speed of 395 mph TAS for an overloaded F6F-5, the SL top speed shows 318mph at military power.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/58310-level.jpg

Unfortunately it doesn't plot the entire curve for combat power. AHT does show full charts for combat power with water injection and the R2800-10W equipped F6F was capable of just short of 400mph.

The original F6F thread is now lost, I posted alot of stuff to that thread. Luckily I also posted it to the devs at the e-mail address posted by Crazy_Ivan. I haven't got a reply yet, should I re-post the e-mail.

Aaron_GT
02-03-2007, 03:14 AM
Additionally, the F6F is reported as a "second-line fighter and trainer," which doesn't seem appropriate to me if it's wartime performance being modeled.

Is that a comment on the boost or just a statement of fact, the standard fighter of 1950 for the USN being the F9F? It was common in many air services to reduce allowed boosts in peacetime but that simple statement quoted in the test could be seen as ambiguous.

ICDP
02-03-2007, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Additionally, the F6F is reported as a "second-line fighter and trainer," which doesn't seem appropriate to me if it's wartime performance being modeled.

Is that a comment on the boost or just a statement of fact, the standard fighter of 1950 for the USN being the F9F? It was common in many air services to reduce allowed boosts in peacetime but that simple statement quoted in the test could be seen as ambiguous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Aaron_GT,

The chart form where that statement was taken shows the rated HP of the R2800-10W (water injected) as being only 2,030hp. The correct HP for the WWII fully rated version was 2,250hp. So a loss of 10% power at SL is quite a bit of a reduction. The loss of power at higher altitude would have been smaller but still less than a fully rated engine.

R_Target
02-03-2007, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by RocketDog:
Target, have you got a version of your plot with the in-game performace plotted for comparison? I have to say, none of the numbers above get close to 400 mph. What am I missing?

Cheers,

RD.

The plot is from WWII Aircraft Performance, and doesn't include the docs I posted at the start of the thread. Most of them are for 52.5" MAP, whereas our PF Hellcat is supposed to be 60" MAP.

Here's in-game performance (thick purple line) roughly plotted against Stirling and Williams' graph:

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/7686/f6flevelpfyy6.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-03-2007, 06:09 AM
The chart form where that statement was taken shows the rated HP of the R2800-10W (water injected) as being only 2,030hp.

My point was more that even if at wartime rated engine power the comment about the F6F being second line and for training would still be true given that the latest USN fighter was the F9F at the time, so the comment in the document may just be referring to this rather than the engine power, although the engine power was also lower than WW2 (a common practice in peacetime - the RAF lowered allowed boost levels too post war). Basically I wondered if people were reading a bit too much into the 'second line fighter' comment.

ICDP
02-03-2007, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The chart form where that statement was taken shows the rated HP of the R2800-10W (water injected) as being only 2,030hp.

My point was more that even if at wartime rated engine power the comment about the F6F being second line and for training would still be true given that the latest USN fighter was the F9F at the time, so the comment in the document may just be referring to this rather than the engine power, although the engine power was also lower than WW2 (a common practice in peacetime - the RAF lowered allowed boost levels too post war). Basically I wondered if people were reading a bit too much into the 'second line fighter' comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could be right about that. I used the referrence to point out that as a second line fighter it would have been de-rated to reduce maintenance. First line fighters even in peactime have to be on constant alert. They would not usually be de-rated as a rule. Though I would never say never.

Either way the current F6F is not even matching the lower rated R2800-10 engine F6F. Our IL2 version is meant to have water injection and speeds for that version range from 395-399mph at bets. Grated there are some charts posted showing less than this but why should the F6F be modelled at the lower end of its performance.

Aaron_GT
02-03-2007, 03:09 PM
You could be right about that. I used the referrence to point out that as a second line fighter it would have been de-rated to reduce maintenance.

Indeed - it was normal practice.

ivankuturkokoff
02-03-2007, 10:29 PM
I have tested the IL246 F6F5 as it is in 4.072M which is the Beta for Ver 4.08.

The Testing was all performed on Crimea map 1200hrs. The aircraft Clean with 50% Fuel rad closed. Power was 110% Water Injection on and Supercharger selected as required to achieve Max TAS at the test point.

A single climb test was performed and it agreed almost exactly with the Climb performance illustrated in the British report The report for JV224 that can be found here;

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/jv224-b.pdf

For the TAS tests I chose three of the Quoted performance tests that have been used in this thread. All three reports vary slightly. The most comprehensive report was that undertaken by the British on Hellcat II JV244 powered by the 2800-10W engine. This report specifically to investigate the effect of Water Injection on Climb and Speed performance. This report only details max speed values from 10,000feet up. My test details have been plotted on the chart.

The IL246 F6F5 is consistently 15MPH TAS below the speeds documented in the report.

http://www.users.on.net/~ttail/hellcatspdfb.jpg

----------------------------------------

I chose two different USN tests as both had slightly different values.
Aircraft 58310 test report can be found here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf

This aircraft as per the report was equipped with R2800-10W engine and was representative of a fleet fighter. The report was a spot Quality Control check on production F6F5s. This test is similar to that of aircraft 72731 (below) however mention is made of "Combat power" And the chart documents 60" MAP being used at 19,000feet. There is no specific reference to Water Injection being used in the test. The British report however indicates max MAP without Water Injection is 521/2" and 60" with Water Injection. This is also an operational limitation listed in the F6F5 Pilot handbook. I assume therefore in the case of 58310 that water Injection is used at MAPS higher than 521/2".

The chart below again shows the data I achieved in Flight test in IL246. In this case the IL246 F6F5 speed agrees with the data up to 5000feet. Between 5000feet and 18.500feet the IL246 F6F5 is on average 10Mph too slow. From 18,500 feet and up the IL246 F6F5 is on average 25mph to slow. In the chart below the red line is my recorded data.

http://www.users.on.net/~ttail/58310fb.jpg

----------------------

Test Aircraft 72371 report can be found here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-72731.pdf

This aircraft as per the report was equipped with R2800-10W engine and was representative of a fleet fighter. The report was another spot Quality Control check on production F6F5s. This aircraft had Zero length Rocket attachments fitted. So performance would I believe be slightly below nominal.

In the chart below the red line is my recorded data.
The F6F5 in IL246 max speeds achieved are almost identical to those in the document.
However on reading the report I believe these have been achieved at 54" Max MAP as no reference to "Combat Power" or charted use of 60"MAP is noted.

http://www.users.on.net/~ttail/72731fb.jpg

SUMMARY
So given 3 different tests we get three slightly different results. There is some other data that indicates Hellcat speeds better than these tests however these appear to be exceptionally performing aircraft and perhaps not completely representative of the normal F6F5 performance. The British report on the other hand provides the most pessimistic performance figures however the description of both the methodology and results is by far the most comprehensive.

If a Fix to the FM is possible my recommendation to Oleg is that F6F5 Vmax speeds be increased across the board by 15mph TAS above 5500feet which is in effect the recommended FB altitude for Shift to Supercharger 2. I believe Vmax speeds below 5500feet i.e. Supercharger 1 should remain unchanged This I believe is a fair solution.

Helmet now on with Fire Extinguishers at the ready http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Thanks to R_Target for additional documentation that I had not previously seen that assisted in this testing.

Ivankuturkokoff
II/JG4_IvanK
(Sean Trestrail)

Marcel_Albert
02-04-2007, 08:31 AM
Thanks for your work to improve the sim Ivan and Target http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ICDP
02-04-2007, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:
SUMMARY
So given 3 different tests we get three slightly different results. There is some other data that indicates Hellcat speeds better than these tests however these appear to be exceptionally performing aircraft and perhaps not completely representative of the normal F6F5 performance. The British report on the other hand provides the most pessimistic performance figures however the description of both the methodology and results is by far the most comprehensive.

If a Fix to the FM is possible my recommendation to Oleg is that F6F5 Vmax speeds be increased across the board by 15mph TAS above 5500feet which is in effect the recommended FB altitude for Shift to Supercharger 2. I believe Vmax speeds below 5500feet i.e. Supercharger 1 should remain unchanged This I believe is a fair solution.

Helmet now on with Fire Extinguishers at the ready http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Thanks to R_Target for additional documentation that I had not previously seen that assisted in this testing.

Ivankuturkokoff
II/JG4_IvanK
(Sean Trestrail)
Great testing Ivan. Your results and conclussions tally with mine and R_Targtet's pretty much spot on. I have tested against much data and concluded (as you have) that at most alts the F6F is too slow by around 15mph.

If I amy be so bold, may I request that you post your findings to the official channels. The more data sent to show this error the more chance we have of getting it fixed. If it isn't fixed than at least we tried.

Once again thansk for all the effort you put into testing the F6F.

ivankuturkokoff
02-04-2007, 01:19 PM
A copy of the tests etc and another link will be sent to oLeg today.

GerritJ9
02-04-2007, 02:15 PM
Slightly OT, but has anybody ever seen such graphs for the F2A/B-339 series? I sent 1C data on these ages ago to prove that the B-239, Buffalo Mk.1 and F2A-2 were undermodelled as far as top speed at altitude is concerned but so far nothing has happened apart from receiving an acknowledgement that the material had arrived and some questions concerning my test results and methods.
10-20 kph deviation for the F6F doesn't sound like a major disaster; the F2A-2 and Buff Mk.1 are out by 40-50 kph which is much more serious and deserves higher priority in my opinion.

R_Target
02-04-2007, 03:12 PM
Good job all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ICDP
02-04-2007, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Good job all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Indeed, thanks to you for getting the ball rolling and to all others (especially Ivan) for performing the required tests. All we can do now is hope there is enough time and resources to get this fixed.

Thanks again.

ImpStarDuece
02-05-2007, 05:02 AM
I've said it before, and i'll say it again.

What we need is three different F6Fs:

*A F6F-3 early, without water injection (370-375 mph top speed);
*A F6F-3 late, with water injection (380-385 mph top speed);
*A F6F-5, with water injection and the cowling and alieron refinements (390 mph top speed).

This way we have a representative Hellcat for the inital battles in 1943 (Tawara, Rabul scenarios ect) and the British battles in 1944, a represenative Hellcat for the mid 1944 PTO scenarios (water injected Hellcats seem to have entered combat in around March 1944) and a representative Hellcat for the 1944 into 1945 scenarios (F6F-5 entered combat in June 1944) against the later war types.

What we have now seems to be neither fish nor fowl. Its faster and climbs better than a F6F-3 wihtout water injection, but slower than a water injected F6F-3/5.

JG53Frankyboy
02-05-2007, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I've said it before, and i'll say it again.

What we need is three different F6Fs:

*A F6F-3 early, without water injection (370-375 mph top speed);
*A F6F-3 late, with water injection (380-385 mph top speed);
*A F6F-5, with water injection and the cowling and alieron refinements (390 mph top speed).

This way we have a representative Hellcat for the inital battles in 1943 (Tawara, Rabul scenarios ect) and the British battles in 1944, a represenative Hellcat for the mid 1944 PTO scenarios (water injected Hellcats seem to have entered combat in around March 1944) and a representative Hellcat for the 1944 into 1945 scenarios (F6F-5 entered combat in June 1944) against the later war types.



100% support by me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
02-05-2007, 08:22 AM
Anything would be good.

The 3 version is a great idea (but then, we should get the cockpits corrected as well and work on the snap spin issues).

One thing I'd like to point out however, while it's a good thing to get even the small boost to a "typical fleet example", that isn't what the FMs are *supposedly* based in. Oleg has said on several occasions that he would be using the most optimistic data for each aircraft in order to give every side, every flyer, and every plane, the best it could hope for (and to avoid sticky issues of arbitrarily picking averages).

He has done this for the VVS and LW and has said he was doing it for the USAAF as well. So, why not the F6F?

Just sayin'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Again, even the 15mph correction would be welcome.

ICDP
02-05-2007, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Anything would be good.

The 3 version is a great idea (but then, we should get the cockpits corrected as well and work on the snap spin issues).

One thing I'd like to point out however, while it's a good thing to get even the small boost to a "typical fleet example", that isn't what the FMs are *supposedly* based in. Oleg has said on several occasions that he would be using the most optimistic data for each aircraft in order to give every side, every flyer, and every plane, the best it could hope for (and to avoid sticky issues of arbitrarily picking averages).

He has done this for the VVS and LW and has said he was doing it for the USAAF as well. So, why not the F6F?

Just sayin'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Again, even the 15mph correction would be welcome.

I think what we have is a basic bias at work here. I am not referring to the devs but to the people on this forum. If it had been the P51, or Fw190 that was 15mph too slow there would be an almighty uproar. Both of the above aircraft meet or slightly exceed their historical speed performance so no need to complain. It is simply that the F6F is less likely to be one of the the most favourite rides. Even with the 15mph boost the F6F would be at a disadvantage to most contempory european fighters of the same year. It is peoples nature to be most interested in the fastest and more famous fighters. If you look at most of the sims released over the years the majority seem to focus on the airwar in western europe. IL2 was the first sim to focus on the eastern front and that was a big step for the devs to alienate a lot of customers from western europe and the U.S. I am not whining, I am just making an observation that the F6F is not as glamorous or famous as the Mustang. Hence the relative lack of posts bringing this to the devs attention.

Then again I could be completely wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
02-05-2007, 10:28 AM
The war in the East (PTO, CBI) doesn't capture the popular imagination in the West in the same way that the war in Europe does. Even in Europe North Africa and the MTO are poor relations. The British and Commonwealth contribution is also not really remembered, even in Britain. So the F6F not being fought for like it should doesn't surprise me that much.

crazyivan1970
02-05-2007, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by ivankuturkokoff:
Ivankuturkokoff
II/JG4_IvanK
(Sean Trestrail)

Sean...man LOL. I had no idea that IvanK is you hehe.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-05-2007, 10:42 AM
It's more a case of the planes that did the clean-up work got the glory, and the associated fanbois. I suppose that plays in to how people on the whole just aren't that bright.

F6F or P-47, same difference, the P-51 and F4U came in on clean-up detail, and now everyone thinks they were the greatest eVaR1!!11.

Although, I don't think the devs are entirely impartial here. In the first place, that just indicates that the fanbois are listened to and that is indeed why the overpopular, overhyped, overbudget, overdeadline, overpriced, hose-nosed ensign eliminator is virtually drag free and too good of a turner with too gentle of a stall (and has too much visibility over the nose).

Plus it seems that US aircraft get the shaft in general. And if it's true that 4.08 is out tomorrow, judging by the readme, we got ignored again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


Regarding USN vs ETO Axis (and Allied) planes... the Spitfire wasn't all that fast, and it would come down to altitude, advantage, and engagment type to determine the outcome (against any plane in the theater). FAA Hellcats did rather well against the Germans. They would fly circles around anything the USAAF or LW had, as well as flying far slower, and diving and zooming every bit as well as the USAAF stuff (and 190s).

And in HL servers, they should rule the skies really, since people engage in grass cutting lufberries so often.

But either way, they were perfectly suited against their navy counterparts (IJN that is). Army fighters tend to be faster in general since they don't need such slow stall (ie, landing) speeds and the equipment and strengthening necessary for carrier ops.

grifter2u
02-06-2007, 06:19 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

we need the hellcat low speed problem fixed soon !

it was the most important allied plane in the pacific, and its performance versus the zero and other japanese planes is well documented !

we need a solution for this, or the whole pacific theater is a waste http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

BigKahuna_GS
02-06-2007, 06:34 PM
Sean...man LOL. I had no idea that IvanK is you hehe.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________


Thank you Sean & R.Target for testing !

We appreciate ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

If possible could you look at take off power vs loadout (Navy 2800rpm short take off setting)?

Also the Sea Level V-max of the Corsair is off by almost 10mph.

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/id71.htm (Official Navy Flight Tests/Specs)
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/id95.htm (Navy Flight Test F4U vs P51B)

F4U-1A at 60" MAP =Sea Level Vmax 366mph
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/23d60700.jpg

F4U-1D under "Clean Condition" Vmax Sea Level 366mph,
Also more combat loadouts vs Take off Distance
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/19728170.jpg

F4U-1D Take off weight/ordance, engine power 2800rpm vs take off distance
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/19128170.jpg

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/24360700.jpg

_

Harry_M
02-06-2007, 07:59 PM
Good job testing, hope it gets results...

BlitzPig_DDT
02-06-2007, 10:14 PM
Even in a thread dedicated to the real workhorse of the Pacific, the fanbois have to come in and ask for an even more powerful UFO than they already have. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
02-06-2007, 10:16 PM
R_Target, any response from the devs?

The snap spin is still there, and it doesn't feel any different (haven't done hardcore speed testing, just noting some online and offline combat experience from tonight - but a side not on the spin... it shouldn't. Not like that, and NOT worse than the ensign eliminator).

I'm guessing nothing was touched here for 4.08.

BigKahuna_GS
02-08-2007, 02:02 PM
BlitzPig_DDT
R_Target, any response from the devs?
The snap spin is still there, and it doesn't feel any different (haven't done hardcore speed testing, just noting some online and offline combat experience from tonight - but a side not on the spin... it shouldn't. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________



One of 609's vitual pilots is a former Hellcat driver for many years in the US Navy. His evaluation of the F6F in email form to 1C was that the Hellcat's stall speed and stall behavior was inaccurate and over done. The real Hellcat did not have the snap stall that it does in IL2. This Navy pilots remembers quite well that for a high performance fighter the F6F had the stall qualities of a trainer. (609_Wayno)




Blitpig-the P-51 and F4U came in on clean-up detail, and now everyone thinks they were the greatest eVaR1!!11.

Where do I start ?
The P51 flew it's first mission in late December 43' for the 8th AF. It didn't have the numbers until May or June 44'

The Corsair on the other hand was flying for most of 1943 with the Marines/Navy in the Solomones as land based fighters. These Corsair pilots faced some of the best Imperial japanese pilots in and around Rabuaul as Yamamoto was commited to winning the battle for the Solomones. Then there is the FAA Corsairs from Brit Carriers along with the Aussies & New Zelanders flying both carrier and land based Corsairs.

There is no clean-up detail for the Corsair was in the fight slugging it out from early on in 43'. There was just more Hellcat Sqdns and of course they were more mobile being the primary fighter for the fleet at that time. The question you have to ask yourself is- Why was the Hellcat replaced by the Corsair as the primary fleet fighter ?

The answer is simple- Official US Navy Flight tests concluded that the Corsair had superior performance parameters in many areas over the Hellcat and it would be the over all better shipboard fighter.



_
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________
BlitzPig_DDT
Even in a thread dedicated to the real workhorse of the Pacific, the fanbois have to come in and ask for an even more powerful UFO than they already have.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________



I am not a mindless fanboi of any aircraft. I like aircraft to perform up to spec. I have been sending Official US Navy Flight tests for over a year after the Hellcat and Corsair had their first big reduction cut in performance. I also encouraged my virtual squadmate (Navy Hellcat Pilot) to eval this bird and write emails to 1C. I am very happy to see the speed problem I noticed a long time ago be finally acknowledged. Hopefully the Hellcat can get it's snap stall problem fixed also. Sorry I don't see the Corsair as a UFO as it does not meet specs in several areas. I can think of several aircraft that have way more optimistic F/Ms as compared to official specs.

The Corsair is too slow on the deck by around 10mph+. The Corsair does not meet combat load out/take off distance specs.
Both the Hellcat & Corsair do not operate at 2800rpm emergency take off power for short distance take offs.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html


The Royal Navy was getting about 370mph on the deck with their Corsairs
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/kd227-level.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/17930-level.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/50030-level.jpg

_

BlitzPig_DDT
02-08-2007, 02:19 PM
Why did they transition? Here we go. You claim you aren't a fanboi, yet you use that as your argument. lol

Let's see.... Grumman was lifecycling the Hellcat, ceasing development of the -6 in favor of the F8F replacement. Furthermore, the f4u carried more ordnance, WHICH, btw, is the only reason it stayed on in Korea, even though the F8F was the preeminent A2A prop, props were nolonger sexy for A2A, that was the realm of jets, and the F8F was a thoroughbred, so.... it was onward with the f4u.

The Hellcat broke the back of the Japanese Navy. The f4u could only provide support until it could be carrier qualified - something that could only be done with a convoluted process change to work around the aircrafts failings. Something a Grumman (ANY Grumman) would never have required. By that time, it was clean up detail. Sorry.

Ditto the P-51. The Bs and Cs had no real impact. It was the Jugs that did the footwork so the Mustangs could get the glory by being the last ones in.

And the UFO-rsair IS a UFO because it has no drag to speak of (in this sim), has stall characteristics that one would not only NOT expect of such a tempermental airfract, but WOULD expect of a Hellcat. It has WAAAAAY too much visibilty over the nose (especially in comparison). It is way too easy to trap with, not requiring any technique to speak of. And it turns every bit as well as the Hellcat - at all speeds.

It has artificial bonuses, lacks it's documented handicaps, and banks and multiplies energy like a mortgage's interest (compounded constantly). It lacks nothing and has things it shouldn't. It's a UFO.

Kindly keep your whining for infinite powers for the overhyped, overbudget, overpriced, overdeadline, overpopular, hosenosed ensign eliminator to threads not dedicated to the real workhorse of the Pacific.

HOWEVER, I do thank you for sharing your pilot friends comments and critiques and for supporting such a vital aircraft (the Hellcat). Wonder if the other deniers will demand you for a track or something. lol

I do hope that we can get this corrected, even if it's not by MG, but rather by whoever takes over support for the series.

ICDP
02-08-2007, 05:19 PM
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/F4U.jpg

358mph in an F4U-1D, which matches the speed sposted in one of your documents EXACTLY. The speeds I have seen for a standard USN F4U range from 355-359mph, the best being 365mph for a non standard F4U-1 with tailhook removed and a non-standard prop. Even if your 365mph was taken as being the normal speed of the F4U-1 I am still only 7mph slower. It most certainly is NOT 10+mph too slow at SL.

The chart you insist on reposting over and over again is from a non-standard F4U-1 that is not indicitive of a typical F4U-1. This F4U1 had a 4 blade prop that was never used on the F4U-1 but was being tested for use on the F4U-4. The aircraft also had the tail hook removed and the hole faired over. So we have a cleaned up non-standard F4U-1 reaching 365mph or only 7mph faster than the speed obtained in PF. Yet you still insist the F4U-1 is undermodelled.

Why don't you ask for the almost non existant torque of the F4U to be fixed. Compared to the much less powerfull F2A-2 the F4U is a docile forgiving aircraft to fly. This is contrary to everything ever published about the F4U having killer torque. Have you ever heard of an aircraft not so affectionately dubbed "the ensign eliminator"?

BigKahuna_GS
02-08-2007, 11:02 PM
Blitz pig-Let's see.... Grumman was lifecycling the Hellcat, ceasing development of the -6 in favor of the F8F replacement. Furthermore, the f4u carried more ordnance, WHICH, btw, is the only reason it stayed on in Korea, even though the F8F was the preeminent A2A prop, props were nolonger sexy for A2A, that was the realm of jets, and the F8F was a thoroughbred, so.... it was onward with the f4u.

The F8F Bearcat would of been my my chioce as best A2A fighter prop fighter. It is the best prop fighter my dad ever flew.
But props were no longer sexy in Korea as my dad was flying F9F Panthers on strike missions there.


_
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________
Blitzpig-Kindly keep your whining for infinite powers for the overhyped, overbudget, overpriced, overdeadline, overpopular, hosenosed ensign eliminator to threads not dedicated to the real workhorse of the Pacific.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________


Well I see that adult conversations can be challenging for you and the irony of this is that you are the very thing that you accuse others of - a Hellcat fanboi with selective historical perspective. Sorry -disagree about most of the Corsair whines you have and it looks like you are still sore that the Hellcat was replaced by a superior performing fighter the Corsair.


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________
ICDP--358mph in an F4U-1D, which matches the speed sposted in one of your documents EXACTLY.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________


ICDP we have been thru this before and you have been wrong everytime. Which document are you refering too ? The P51B speed listed or the Royal Navy Corsair speed without water injection? Those are the only two aircraft matching your claim. In IL2 358 is the top range as I have also got 355-357mph.



__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________
ICDP-The speeds I have seen for a standard USN F4U range from 355-359mph,
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________


Why do you throw continualy throw out the many flight tests showing this to be inaccurate ?
What you have to watch out for is that many of the Navys flight tests were with pylons, drop tanks,
and at military power --which is around the speed you are claiming.

Heres Official Navy & FAA flight tests you keep selectivly ignoring.

Overloaded Corsair with tail hook
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/17930-level.jpg

Another Overloaded Corsair with tail hook
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/50030-level.jpg

Royal Navy Fully Loaded Corsair with tail hook 370mph at sea level
Notice both with & without water injection
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/kd227-level.jpg

Official US Navy spec representaive of stock combat Corsairs----"Sea Level V-max 366mph" "Clean Condition"
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/19728170.jpg



__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________
ICDP-The chart you insist on reposting over and over again is from a non-standard F4U-1 that is not indicitive of a typical F4U-1. This F4U1 had a 4 blade prop that was never used on the F4U-1 but was being tested for use on the F4U-4. The aircraft also had the tail hook removed and the hole faired over. So we have a cleaned up non-standard F4U-1 reaching 365mph or only 7mph faster than the speed obtained in PF. Yet you still insist the F4U-1 is undermodelled.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________


Better re-read the report. One Corsair was cleaned up as also the P51 was with polished wings and sealed gaps. This same Corsair was also overboosted to 65" MAP. The other Corsair (60" MAP) was considered representaive of a typical combat land based Corsair fighter with it's tail hook removed. If you think the only reason this Corsair hit 366mph at sea level was because the tail hook was removed LOOK at the ABOVE Flight Tests with tail hooks in place and Overloaded Corsairs.

I am refering to the F4U-1A at the standard 60"MAP rating
See Drag Conditions #2. F4U-1A

"Surface finish in rather poor condition......considered to be in drag condition representative of production airplanes after moderate service."

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/21f60700.jpg

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/22560700.jpg



_
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________
ICDP--Why don't you ask for the almost non existant torque of the F4U to be fixed. Compared to the much less powerfull F2A-2 the F4U is a docile forgiving aircraft to fly. This is contrary to everything ever published about the F4U having killer torque. Have you ever heard of an aircraft not so affectionately dubbed "the ensign eliminator"?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________


Don't assume I haven't. You know what happens when you assume things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Lack of torque in this sim is a global problem not specific to just the Corsair, look at all 109s, 190 models, and Spitfires for example. You can fly the 190D-9 at full throttle/WEP near stall speed and high AoA without any fear of torque stall and snap stalling. That is not reality. Since I mostly fly the P38 I would really like to see more torque added as this would be more realistic and benefit the P38 as it had no torque. In an RAF test of the P38 vs 190, the P38 could utilize very high power in a high AoA spiral climb that would cause the pursuing 190 to torque stall every time and drop away. This can't be done in IL2 because torque values are not high enough.

ICDP
02-09-2007, 10:59 AM
Because the speeds for the F4U-1 range from 355 to 365mph (at best). We are hitting 358mph and that is completely representative of an F4U-1 speed at SL. Stop the BS 10+mph too slow speeds, you even claim you can get 357mph yourself. Since when does 365 - 357 = 10+!!!!!!, even with my basic math skills the answer = 8. Or to put it another way around 2% difference. This falls well within the acceptable 3% variation that was allowed in RL. So if our F4U-1D' has a tailhook and wing racks as standard that could account for the 8mph difference.

Sorry for making assumptions, at least you acknowledge the problems with lack of any meaningful torque in the F4U (and other aircraft).

The fact remains that your continual insistance that the F4U1 is 10+mph too slow is unrealistic.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-09-2007, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
The fact remains that your continual insistance that the F4U1 is 10+mph too slow is unrealistic.

AND in a thread about the Hellcat. To say nothing of the fact that when called on it, he reverts to the age old tradition of accusing people of being childish. How original. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

lrrp22
02-09-2007, 11:23 AM
Hey Kahuna,

FYI, the Royal Navy Corsair IV test shows 370 mph at 10,000 feet, not sea level! However, I agree that 365-366 mph@SL seems to be the most common speed quoted by the U.S. Navy for a clean (no wing pylons) F4U-1A/D with the R-2800-8W. 357-358 mph is pretty much dead-nuts right for a -1D with wing pylons.

LRRP

PS- Please fix the Hellcat's speed, it's too slow! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Markw4
02-28-2007, 07:08 PM
A couple of things here.

1. The 370MPH at 10,000FT is in high blower, the F4U has no business in high blower below 18,000FT. In low blower the top speed is between 380-390MPH depending on condition.

2. 358MPH is the top speed for a F4U-1D with pylons, 366MPH in the clean condition with tailhook installed.

3. I have a NAVAIR doc that shows the F4U-1D top speed over 430MPH in the clean condition. It all depends on the condtion on the condition ducting in the highblower stage. These test can vary greatly.

Having said that I haven't touched Il-2 in over a year because I was disgusted with the F4U FM.

Does it stall anywhere close to the listed stall speed or does it still fly like the Hindenberg?

ICDP
03-01-2007, 05:24 PM
Well in 4.07 the F4U was easier to fly and was less prone to stalling than the F6F!. I haven't tested in 4.08 but I hope it has been fixed so that it is at least harder to fly than the F6F. Some torque in the F4U woudn't go amiss either.

AKA_TAGERT
03-01-2007, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
358mph in an F4U-1D, which matches the speed sposted in one of your documents EXACTLY.
Well the best I could get was 350mph (564kph), and that was after a 60ft drop in alt (read shallow dive). The best 'level' speed I could 'hold' was lower than that. About ~345mph.

Here is the graph of the data.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/408_TOP_SPEED_SEALEVL_F4U1D_TAS_ALT.jpg

NOTE the TOP SPEED was obtain at the point where I did a shallow dive.

Also remember there is an unexplained error in TAS (wonder woman display) and IAS (digital display, cockpit guages, and DeviceLink data) at sea level for all planes!

That is to say the IAS and TAS should be equal at seal level (+/- 2 or 3 mph or so). But there is an error of about 20mph between the digital mph display and the TAS display in the Wonder Woman view (converting kph to mph). Some of it is due to the round off of the other displays but in DeviceLink there is no round off.

With that said the MAX TAS in the graph of 342mph is derived from the DeviceLink IAS and Altitude, which is only -8mph error from the Wonder Woman TAS kph value converted to mph. Where as the 350mph IAS value is from converting the visually peak observed in the TAS Wonder Woman display. And remember Oleg say the Wonder Woman TAS display is the only display to go by! But even with that, the best I could get was 350mph after a shallow dive! IMHO the only way to get a higher value is to do a bigger dive (i.e. not a true level speed test)

My test was done at sea level with 50% fuel, started out at less than 100% and than went to WEP. You can see the MP jump in the DeviceLink analysis file.

So..

By the WonderWoman view and my 'peak' the differance is..
358 - 350 = 8

By the WonderWoman view and my 'hold' the differance is..
358 - 345 = 13 <-- the one I would go by

By DeviceLink TAS 'peak' the differance is..
358 - 342 = 15

By DeviceLink TAS 'hold' the differance is..
358 - 338 = 20

Here is a link to the track file and Analysis file

Track File in ntrk format (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/408_TOP_SPEED_SEALEVL_F4U1D.ntrk)
Analysis file in pdf format (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/408_TOP_SPEED_SEALEVL_F4U1D_SUMMARY.pdf)

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 06:53 AM
In summary.. You show me a track file of someone getting more than 350mph at sea level and Ill show you someone that dove about 100ft to do it.

JtD
03-02-2007, 09:46 AM
I get the F-4U-1D to 575 kph in a slow climb from 9 to 11 m. Slow enough to consider it level.

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I get the F-4U-1D to 575 kph in a slow climb from 9 to 11 m. Slow enough to consider it level. Got Track?

In that my prediction still stands.. i.e.

Show me a track file of someone getting more than 350mph at sea level and Ill show you someone that dove about 100ft to do it.

Brain32
03-02-2007, 10:09 AM
I just tried it(F4U-1D), also got 576kmh, strait out and level 10m of altitude...

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I just tried it(F4U-1D), also got 576kmh, strait out and level 10m of altitude... Got Track?

In that my prediction still stands.. i.e.

Show me a track file of someone getting more than 350mph at sea level and Ill show you someone that dove about 100ft to do it.

Brain32
03-02-2007, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I just tried it(F4U-1D), also got 576kmh, strait out and level 10m of altitude... Got Track?

In that my prediction still stands.. i.e.

Show me a track file of someone getting more than 350mph at sea level and Ill show you someone that dove about 100ft to do it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was your mail? nacatesting_at_yahoo_.com? Or something like that?

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 10:15 AM
naca_testing@yahoo.com

ICDP
03-02-2007, 10:20 AM
Hi Tagert,

http://dl2.ohshare.com/v/4308675/F4U_1D_speed.rar.html

The above URL is a link to an ntrak of a single F4U-1D speedrun. The conditions were the usual. Crimea, 12:00noon, 100% fuel and ammo, full power (110% + WEP). I kept the aircraft fairly level and was able to hold 574kph (357mph). As you can see from the ntrak there was no diving from 100ft to achieve this speed. In my F4U-1D testing I get 356-358mph at SL consistantly. The top speed of the F4U1 in IL2 at 20,000ft is 420-422mph. The F4U-1A reaches the same speed but without rocket racks. I would like to see the F4U-1A given about an extra 6 or 7mph increase in speed at SL to reflect the cleaner condition.

This for Markw4:
I tested stall speeds of the F4U. 25% fuel, Crimea, noon. Clean condition stall was 87-89mph IAS. Landing configuration stall was 77-80mph IAS. I did three stall tests in each configuration. This also corresponds quite well with USN test figures.

I must do speed tests at all altitudes to see how the F4U compares to the real tests. At SL and CA it is pretty much spot on give or take a few mph.

Brain32
03-02-2007, 10:34 AM
Track sent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Hi Tagert,

http://dl2.ohshare.com/v/4308675/F4U_1D_speed.rar.html

The above URL is a link to an ntrak of a single F4U-1D speedrun. The conditions were the usual. Crimea, 12:00noon, 100% fuel and ammo, full power (110% + WEP). I kept the aircraft fairly level and was able to hold 574kph (357mph). As you can see from the ntrak there was no diving from 100ft to achieve this speed. In my F4U-1D testing I get 356-358mph at SL consistantly. The top speed of the F4U1 in IL2 at 20,000ft is 420-422mph. The F4U-1A reaches the same speed but without rocket racks. I would like to see the F4U-1A given about an extra 6 or 7mph increase in speed at SL to reflect the cleaner condition.

This for Markw4:
I tested stall speeds of the F4U. 25% fuel, Crimea, noon. Clean condition stall was 87-89mph IAS. Landing configuration stall was 77-80mph IAS. I did three stall tests in each configuration. This also corresponds quite well with USN test figures.

I must do speed tests at all altitudes to see how the F4U compares to the real tests. At SL and CA it is pretty much spot on give or take a few mph.
I stand corrected..

I should have said.. dive 100ft to do it..

OR

Adjust the prop pitch at the last moment to squeeze out a few more mph to do it.

I will give you credit for doing a better job of level flight than I did, and you did manage to hit a peak of 576kph (visually from the Wonder Woman TAS display) for about a half second at the very end by adj the prop pitch followed by a shallow dive of about ~13ft (28ft - 15ft). But a half second spike in speed is not what I would call a 'sustained' level top speed.

Your best 'hold' speed was right around 574/573 which is about 356mph, you held that for a fair amount of time, thus besting my 350mph by 6mph.

Here are a few graphs to 'support' what I said above

Here is the TAS vs. ALT nice job keeping it nice and level
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/ICDP_00/408_TOP_SPEED_0KFT_F4U1D_ICDP_00_TAS_ALT.JPG

Here you can see the MAX TAS is obtained by tweaking the prop pitch
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/ICDP_00/408_TOP_SPEED_0KFT_F4U1D_ICDP_00_TAS_RPM.JPG

Note the effect of the prop pitch adjustment at the end and it's effect on RPM
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/ICDP_00/408_TOP_SPEED_0KFT_F4U1D_ICDP_00_PP_RPM.JPG

So can anyone do it without any altitude losses (shallow dive) or prop pitch adjustments/games?

Here is a link to the full analysis (I included PE,KE and TE)
Analysis in pdf format (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/ICDP_00/408_TOP_SPEED_0KFT_F4U1D_ICDP_00_SUMMARY.pdf)

PS remember these graphs show DeviceLink data! There is an error between the WonderWoman displayed values and the cockpit guages, digital display, and DeviceLink data.

JtD
03-02-2007, 11:40 AM
575 track (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/quick0000.ntrk)

ICDP
03-02-2007, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:So can anyone do it without any altitude losses (shallow dive) or prop pitch adjustments/games?

Thanks for running the test throught devicelink, much appreciated and as usuall very well presented. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I am not trying to be cheeky/confrontational here but didn't you answer the above question yourself when you confirmed that my best held speed was 574kph (357mph)? I also didn't use the speed of 576kph since I felt it was an invalid result due to the PP reduction. I frequently run speed tests that include reducing the PP to 90% after my speed has settled. This usually results in around 2kph extra but only after the speed has settled again. It has been common knowledge for a while now that not all top speeds are attainable with 100% PP constantly. I am not referring to the high/low PP exploit just a plain slight reduction in PP.

May I ask if you use wind on or off during your tests? The reason I ask is that it can reduce top speed by around 10kph and that could explain the difference in our speeds.

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 12:14 PM
WOW! I don't know wether to call BULL$HIT or congratulate you on being the best test pilot I have ever seen?

I think I will have to go with the BULL$HIT call for two reasons

1) You flew for over 6min but never received an ENGINE OVER HEAT indication
2) Your variance in altitude was only +/- 2.5ft

Number 2 is not as important as number 1 but I just find it interesting, in that even AI has trouble doing that! It was almost as if you had auto level enabled.. but that only works for bombers..

With that said, you did manage to obtain and hold 576kph for a long period of time! But.. something is fishie here.. I am going to have to toss the BULL$HIT flag on this one!

Anyway, here are your results
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/BRIAN32_00/408_TOP_SPEED_0KFT_F4U1D_BRIAN32_00_TAS_ALT.JPG

Here is the analysis
analysis in pdf format (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/BRIAN32_00/408_TOP_SPEED_0KFT_F4U1D_BRIAN32_00_SUMMARY.pdf)

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Thanks for running the test throught devicelink, much appreciated and as usuall very well presented. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
NP! And TU!


Originally posted by ICDP:
I am not trying to be cheeky/confrontational here but didn't you answer the above question yourself when you confirmed that my best held speed was 574kph (357mph)? True! You did manage to hold a good 574kph! And that is close to the 358mph you were talking about!


Originally posted by ICDP:
I also didn't use the speed of 576kph since I felt it was an invalid result due to the PP reduction.
Ah, well I saw it in your screen capture that shows 576, i.e.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/F4U.jpg

So I though you were using it.. if not my bad!


Originally posted by ICDP:
I frequently run speed tests that include reducing the PP to 90% after my speed has settled. This usually results in around 2kph extra but only after the speed has settled again. Results in a spike of about 2kph at the onset of the PP adjustment, but once it settles down, it settles to a speed lower than what you started at.


Originally posted by ICDP:
It has been common knowledge for a while now that not all top speeds are attainable with 100% PP constantly. I am not referring to the high/low PP exploit just a plain slight reduction in PP.
News to me


Originally posted by ICDP:
May I ask if you use wind on or off during your tests? The reason I ask is that it can reduce top speed by around 10kph and that could explain the difference in our speeds.
To be honest, I did not know you could turn wind off! How do you do that? And did you do it during your test? If so, that may well explaine our differences.. but as for Brian32's values.. Looks like the realistic settings were turned off to me.. No overheat and such.

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
575 track (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/quick0000.ntrk) Sorry JtD but a 2 second track showing 576kph on the WW Display is no better than a screen shot shwoing 576kph on the WW Dispaly!

For all we know you dived down from 10kft feet and leveled out at sea level at 576kph and 'than' started recording for 2 seconds.

I need a track with at least a min prior to and post of the max speed obtained to show 'how' it was obtained.

JtD
03-02-2007, 01:26 PM
Try again. (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/quick0000.ntrk)

ICDP
03-02-2007, 01:27 PM
Hi Tag,

I had wind effect enabled during the test. I never turn wind off it would be sacriligious http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The wind effects are on the first difficulty settings page. I only ever knew about it because someone (I can't remember who) pointed out a speed result I obtained was bogus because wind was on. IIRC he claimed wind gave an extra 10kph speed if your heading was south and reduced speed by 10kph if your heading was north. When I tested this it turned out I could get the same speed no matter what the heading. I thought that this could expalin the difference we were getting in speeds.

You have a very valid point re the PP reduction. I just tested and indeed after about 15 seconds my speed was lower than when it started by about 3kph. I was mistakingly assuming that if I could hold the speed for even 10 seconds it was valid. My 576kph speed for the F4U1 is wrong, the actual best speed I can get is 573-574kph. Not a lot but still worth noting nonetheless. I will cease using this method in light of this, thanks for pointing it out.

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Try again. (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/quick0000.ntrk) Better but I want to see what lead up to the max speed.. not just the max speed! You know.. show me you flying at less than the max speed in level flight.. i.e. something less that 100% throttole.. than punch it and show me you going from something less than 576 to 576!

Long story short, start recording sooner! Don't wait to start recording once you get to 576!

I think you close! In that you did hit 577 there for a sec! But there is still a Q as to how you got there?

For example, did you start out slow at sea level and increase your speed up to 576 (valid test)

Or

Did you dive down with some stored up energy and hit 576 once you leveled out at sea level (not valid test)

I can not tell from your track file because you didnt start recording UNTIL you got to 576! Start recording sooner and we will have something!

PS you did a nice job of level flight in that last one!

JtD
03-02-2007, 03:06 PM
Ok then. About nine minutes from the mid air start until to the end of track. (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/quick0000.ntrk)

I could have extended that 576 part, but you know it already I guess.

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Ok then. About nine minutes from the mid air start until to the end of track. (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/quick0000.ntrk)

I could have extended that 576 part, but you know it already I guess. LOL!

Are you pulling my leg? Or did you upload the wrong track file?

In that the one you have there starts off with you sinking 3 ships with rockets.. with a head on pass of a jap plane that puts a few rounds in you wings.. Than you proceed to extend for a few min at sea level for awhile.. than loop and mix it up with a jap plane for awhile expending ammo all the while and than end..

Or are you serious? If so, nice ACM but not what I would call a sea level top speed test. In that I don't know if the weight of the ammo you expended equals the amount of jap ammo that landed in your plane! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But.. anyway.. Here is the results from your test.. Not sure what to make of them!
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/JTD_00/408_TOP_SPEED_0KFT_F4U1D_JTD_00_TAS_ALT.JPG
NOTE your max speed of 363 was obtained after a dive from 3,500ft down to sea level

A side note.. you might be interested in your 'energy' and how it chaged during your dogfight
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/JTD_00/408_TOP_SPEED_0KFT_F4U1D_JTD_00_PE_KE_TE.JPG

Here is a link to the full analysis
Full Analysis in pdf format (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/JTD_00/408_TOP_SPEED_0KFT_F4U1D_JTD_00_SUMMARY.pdf)

Brain32
03-02-2007, 04:36 PM
What about my track?

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
What about my track? See 2nd post on this page

Brain32
03-02-2007, 04:43 PM
I flew with engine overheat off as I did some pure speed tests previously http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
No bullsh1ts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
As for how I flew level THAT accurately check this thread on CWOS although I'm VERY suprised you didn't see this:
http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...le=viewtopic&t=13359 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=13359)

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2007, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I flew with engine overheat off as I did some pure speed tests previously http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Thought so.. Problem is.. I don't know how much that factors into it all.. Be best to do it like the rest and leave it on IMHO


Originally posted by Brain32:
No bullsh1ts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
As for how I flew level THAT accurately check this thread on CWOS although I'm VERY suprised you didn't see this:
I have not seen that CWOS post.. Im off to read it right now! What ever it is your doing! It was amazinly smooth! So if there is a way to do this.. I will use it in all future speed tests! What ever it is.. Im sure it helped your numbers! Like I said, never seen anyone maintain such a steady altitude! So thanks in advance for the link!

WOW! Just got back from reading the first line! So it is a DeviceLink auto pilot! This is cool! I was about to try and make one myself! But no need now! Thanks a million Brian! I recant my BULL$HIT flag and attribute your max speed to this utility doing such a fine job!

JtD
03-03-2007, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
LOL!

Are you pulling my leg? Or did you upload the wrong track file?

It's the right track - I jut figured you'd be more entertained if a test track would not just show a plane running straight for a few minutes.

I got it up to 576 km/h wwTAS in that hit-the-deck in order to extend episode (minutes 3-4).

The energy part looks pretty cool, I know it is about like that, but fun to see it goes down whenever I pull the stick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Looking at the discrepancies between the IAS calculated TAS and the wwTAS, I did a calibration test yesterday. It starts with the assumption that the grid km/map coordinates are correct. I had a high speed long distance flight over a distance I specified exactly in the FMB. The calculated time needed, based on the wwTAS, was 7 min 22.84 sec. I stopped 7 min 22.84 sec (no joke, accurate to 1/100th of a second). So the wwTAS accurately displays your speed over the ground.

AKA_TAGERT
03-03-2007, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
It's the right track - I jut figured you'd be more entertained if a test track would not just show a plane running straight for a few minutes. Just the oposite! For testing, do one thing, and one thing only! Makes for smaller track files and easier to see cause and effect if you limit the things that change.


Originally posted by JtD:
I got it up to 576 km/h wwTAS in that hit-the-deck in order to extend episode (minutes 3-4).
But looking at the TE it looks like you started out with a little more than the others that didn't dive down to it.


Originally posted by JtD:
The energy part looks pretty cool, I know it is about like that, but fun to see it goes down whenever I pull the stick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Yeah they are pretty cool to watch how the PE and KE exchance Energy with each other.


Originally posted by JtD:
Looking at the discrepancies between the IAS calculated TAS and the wwTAS, I did a calibration test yesterday. It starts with the assumption that the grid km/map coordinates are correct. I had a high speed long distance flight over a distance I specified exactly in the FMB. The calculated time needed, based on the wwTAS, was 7 min 22.84 sec. I stopped 7 min 22.84 sec (no joke, accurate to 1/100th of a second). So the wwTAS accurately displays your speed over the ground. Yup just like Oleg said! Im working on a equation to account for the error in the wwTAS and the dlTAS from dlIAS.

As for the 576kph thing.. it looks like my prediction was wrong.. It appears that it can be done using that util that Brian32 provided us the link to (except he did it with overheat turnned off). In that the auto pilot does it perfectly level. So, we should not condem Oleg's FM based on our poor pilot skills! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif On that note.. YOU were the best real pilot of the bunch at keeping it level! That time between 3min to 4min you were not only skimming the water tops.. but looking all over the place for that enmy plane!

How did you keep it so level while doing that?

I have trouble chewing gum and flying level! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

With that said.. what with you being the most steady real pilot.. I would really like to see you do another test.. No rockes, No dogfights, Just start at sea level at ~500kph, hit the WEP and see how long it takes you to get to 576! All real settings like you before.. don't turn overheat off like Brian32 did!

In that I just know someone is going to call using that autopilot a cheat! Ill bet in the futrue someone is going to beyach about some 'value' and claim that the only way to get the rated 'value' is by using the autopilot, and thus try to imply that it is a 'cheat'!

At which point it would be nice to have YOUR track file to present showing that REAL pilots can do it too.. but only REAL GOOD pilots! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
03-03-2007, 11:01 AM
This should finally be a good track for the desired purpose. (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/quick0000.ntrk)


How did you keep it so level while doing that?

Question of trim. I barely touched the stick. But it doesn't always work as nicely, depends on the mood my worn joystick is in.

AKA_TAGERT
03-07-2007, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
This should finally be a good track for the desired purpose.
WOW!

I am speachless!

Not only did you nail it.. speed wise (577kph) but I think you did a better job of flying than that autopilot!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/JTD_01/408_TOP_SPEED_0KFT_F4U1D_JTD_01_TAS.JPG

Very Nice! S!

Here is the rest of the analysis
Full analysis in pdf format (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/TOP_SPEED/408/F4U1D/JTD_01/408_TOP_SPEED_0KFT_F4U1D_JTD_01_SUMMARY.pdf)

NOTE I came up with a scale factor equation to convert the DeviceLink IAS to TAS at all altitudes. It has about a 1.5% error max at some alts. So the TAS graphs you see should be very close to what the Wonder Woman dispaly would show.

JtD
03-09-2007, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

NOTE I came up with a scale factor equation to convert the DeviceLink IAS to TAS at all altitudes. It has about a 1.5% error max at some alts. So the TAS graphs you see should be very close to what the Wonder Woman dispaly would show.

Interesting to know, and for the rest - it was a pleasure to have this evaluated. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
03-15-2007, 12:57 AM
FYI, the Royal Navy Corsair IV test shows 370 mph at 10,000 feet, not sea level! However, I agree that 365-366 mph@SL seems to be the most common speed quoted by the U.S. Navy for a clean (no wing pylons) F4U-1A/D with the R-2800-8W. 357-358 mph is pretty much dead-nuts right for a -1D with wing pylons.

LRRP
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________



Hya Mate !

Good to see you agree with me on the sea level speed for a Corsair in clean condition==366mph sea level according to US Navy docs. My mistake on the RAF sea level test--it was late and I was tired.

The trouble about the 357-358mph speed you list for a 1D with wing pylons is that this is the sea level Vmax speed of the 1D <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">without</span> pylons in IL2--so it is flying like it has wing pylons mounted when wing pylons are not mounted.



__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________
ICDP Posted Fri February 09 2007 08:59 Hide Post
Because the speeds for the F4U-1 range from 355 to 365mph (at best). We are hitting 358mph and that is completely representative of an F4U-1 speed at SL. Stop the BS 10+mph too slow speeds, you even claim you can get 357mph yourself. Since when does 365 - 357 = 10+!!!!!!, even with my basic math skills the answer = 8. Or to put it another way around 2% difference. This falls well within the acceptable 3% variation that was allowed in RL. So if our F4U-1D' has a tailhook and wing racks as standard that could account for the 8mph difference.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



ICDP--you have on a consistent basis listed the sea level speed of the Corsair at 355mph and you typicaly post your doc showing this (while this doc does not indicate the testing condition of the aircraft). Now I see that you are actualy increasing the sea level speed and giving it a range all the way to 365mph (at best according to you) and you are once again wrongly claiming
that this speed was attained without a tailhook. So I see you have had to increase your speed of 355mph that you normaly post but you couldn't quite list the 366mph that the US Navy indicates.

Whether it is an 8mph difference or a 10mph difference you simply are not getting the fact that this is an incorrect speed and the Corsair is flying too slow. And as I have stated before and is on the document below both the Corsair and Hellcat have the wrong take off power & take off distance vs combat loadout.



What part of this don't you understand :

Official US Navy spec representaive of stock combat Corsairs----"<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Sea Level V-max 366mph</span>" "Clean Condition" with tailhook. This is the speed representative of typical wartime fleet Corsairs. (Not the "at best" BS you keep posting)

http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/19728170.jpg

msalama
03-15-2007, 04:19 AM
Hmmm... now I'm not here to p1sh on anyone's cornflakes - or taking any sides even - but were those tests done with a single AC only? Because if they were, then of course there's a small but still unknown amount of randomness in the results too...

Just asking. Have a nice day all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ICDP
03-15-2007, 02:09 PM
edited

R_Target
03-30-2007, 04:41 PM
Bump.

While we're on the subject, ammo loadout is incorrect for the F6F. All six guns should have 400 rpg for around 30 seconds firing time. As it is now, the inner four run out of bullets at about 20-21 seconds.

BigKahuna_GS
04-03-2007, 01:22 AM
S!
R_Target
While we're on the subject, ammo loadout is incorrect for the F6F. All six guns should have 400 rpg for around 30 seconds firing time. As it is now, the inner four run out of bullets at about 20-21 seconds.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________


Target--thanks for testing and bringing these needed changes to light. I did similar testing over a year ago and found the same problems you did. I think that sometimes timing is everything and hopefully there is enough time to show the Hellcat & Navy planes in general some Luv in this next patch.




__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________
ICDP:
I tested stall speeds of the F4U. 25% fuel, Crimea, noon. Clean condition stall was 87-89mph IAS. Landing configuration stall was 77-80mph IAS. I did three stall tests in each configuration. This also corresponds quite well with USN test figures.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________



Could you please post the USN flight tests where they stall test with only a 25%fuel load ?

The IL2 beta testers criteria for stall testing has always been with 100% fuel load + ammo for all
aircraft. I have never seen a beta test for a 25% fuel load stall test performed--not to say they couldn't do it though.
Also, I have never seen an offical US Navy stall test performed with only a 25% fuel load either. I have seen either 100% or No-Fuel.


The US Navy lists Corsair stall, wingloading, & speed specs with 2 capped pylons as :


Gross Weight------------------------------12,175lbs
Full Fuel & Oil---------------------------237gal/13gal
Full Ammo load out------------------------2400rds
Wing Loading------------------------------38.8lbs
Power Loading-----------------------------6.2lbs/HP
Sea Level V-max <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">with 2 capped pylons------358mph</span>

See Note (2) on document below
Stall speed-(100% fuel) <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Without Power---87.5mph</span>
Stall speed-(No Fuel) <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Without Power---82.2mph</span>

It looks like the US Navy was getting similar or better stall speeds than you with 100% fuel (not the 25% fuel load you used) with <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">No Power </span> including the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">extra drag of 2 capped pylons</span>.

Try your IL2 Corsair stall tests again with another 75% fuel added (100% total), the drag of 2 capped pylons, and Power Off and see what you get.

F4U-1D Standard Aircraft Characteristics
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/id71.htm
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/19128170.jpg

ICDP
04-03-2007, 10:33 AM
I looked at those charts but since they don't state wether it is in clean or landing configuration I used this one.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/alliedchrt.jpg

(Ignore the red mark under SL speed).

As you can see it states a stall speed of 83mph with 1/4 fuel and 1/4 ammo at landing weight. I got a lower stall speed than this with 1/4 fuel and full ammo (77-80mph). So according to this chart the stall speeds are pretty accurate if not slightly too low.

With 100% fuel and ammo, hook extended, full flaps, gear down and also with 2 bomb racks and centre rack. Stall speed was 72 knots IAS (83mph). So all in all it is actually around 5 mph too low for stall speed in most configurations. To me that is more than accurate that is being slightly generous. All in all I won't complain over this minor problem with stall speeds. I mean there is no point complaining over only 5mph difference is there?

I have a trak if you need it.

BigKahuna_GS
04-06-2007, 12:11 AM
As you can see it states a stall speed of 83mph with 1/4 fuel and 1/4 ammo at landing weight. I got a lower stall speed than this with 1/4 fuel and full ammo (77-80mph). So according to this chart the stall speeds are pretty accurate if not slightly too low.


Hya ICDP,

I see you posted you favorite chart again--the one with all the incomplete info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Do you have any more pages to this bueaty ?

There is no mention of loadout, racks, pylons, drop tanks, gross weight
and most important was this a "powered" or "non-powered" stall test with or without flaps?
Other than that it is very informative--lol.

It's kind of hard to understand how a non-powered stall test with full fuel, ammo &
wing pylons is matching/beating the same stall speeds as those you are posting unless the Corsair is configured quite differently from a clean condition on your chart and it is quite possibly a non powered stall test.

Looking at your chart the F4U-4 should have a clean condition V-max sea level speed exceeding 380+mph,and 464mph at altitude but your chart states 370mph sea level & 450mph. Most likely the F4U-4 has wing pylons, centerline rack or possibly a drop tank(s). Since your chart does not give the load out condition for any aircraft listed --except during take off (2 drop tanks)it is
all speculation.

On the US Navy chart sea level speed with (2)capped pylons & centerline rack is listed as 358mph where as your chart lists 355mph which is more than likely with wing pylons, centerline rack or
drop tank(s). Since the speed listed on your chart does not give the load out condition of the aircraft it is all speculation but definetly lower values than what the US Navy lists for a
weathered typical Fleet Corsair with hook --sea level V-max 366mph in "clean condition".

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
ICDP-I looked at those charts but since they don't state wether it is in clean or landing configuration I used this one.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________


The charts tell you what you need to know and there are 7 pages of them. I already listed the condition of the aircrat for you:

The US Navy Corsair stall aircraft loadout :


Gross Weight------------------------------12,175lbs
Full Fuel & Oil---------------------------237gal/13gal
Full Ammo load out------------------------2400rds
Wing Loading------------------------------38.8lbs
Power Loading-----------------------------6.2lbs/HP
Wing Pylons (2) capped
Drop tank rack
Sea Level V-max with 2 capped pylons------358mph

See Note (2) on document below
Stall speed-(100% fuel) Without Power---87.5mph
Stall speed-(No Fuel) Without Power---82.2mph

If you click on the link I provided you would see the rest of the test and that it is
7pages long :

Slaker's Flight Journal | Historical Information | home

F4U-1D Standard Aircraft Characteristics

This is the standard aircraft characteristics document issued by the for the F4U-1D in 1945 by the Navy Dept. It contains performance data based on flight tests. This document also covers the F4U-1C cannon armed variant, as well as the FG-1, a Goodyear built version of the F4U-1D.


SAC F4U-1D pg. 1
Airplane Characteristics & Performance Loading Conditions 1 - 4

SAC F4U-1D pg. 2
Airplane Characteristics & Performance Loading Conditions 5 - 8

SAC F4U-1D pg. 3
Airplane Characteristics & Performance Loading Conditions 9 - 10

SAC F4U-1D pg. 4
Airplane Characteristics & Performance Notes

SAC F4U-1D pg. 5
Airplane Performance Charts - Speed, Climb, and Endurance

SAC F4U-1D pg. 6
Descriptive Arrangement

SAC F4U-1D pg. 7
Armament & Tanks
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
ICDP-As you can see it states a stall speed of 83mph with 1/4 fuel and 1/4 ammo at landing weight. I got a lower stall speed than this with 1/4 fuel and full ammo (77-80mph). So according to this chart the stall speeds are pretty accurate if not slightly too low.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


Since your chart does not list aircraft loadout condition, racks, pylons, drop tanks, gross weight and most important was this a "powered" or "non-powered" stall test with or without flaps-
it is all specualtive and non conclusive. It may even be an "estimated" stall speed based on
landing weight.


__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
ICDP-With 100% fuel and ammo, hook extended, full flaps, gear down and also with 2 bomb racks and centre rack. Stall speed was 72 knots IAS (83mph). So all in all it is actually around 5 mph too low for stall speed in most configurations. To me that is more than accurate that is being slightly generous. All in all I won't complain over this minor problem with stall speeds. I mean there is no point complaining over only 5mph difference is there?
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________


Was your stall test powered or non-powered ?

Neither chart states whether flaps were used.



190, F4U, F6F Speed runs
Corsair 363mph at 200ft only a 2 minute speed run
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/1f460b00.jpg

Condition of the Corsair paragrah-4--factory propeller (wrong one--should of been the the same propeller as the Hellcat used), wrong fuel setting used during flight testing-"auto-lean" was used instead of "auto-rich" which caused premature overheating and less performance.
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/20060b00.jpg


Corsair Power settings--note the manifold pressure was not reaching 60Hg
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/20660b00.jpg

ICDP
04-06-2007, 09:27 AM
The tests were all done power off, I am going from previous tests conducted with version 4.08. If you think the F4U stall is off then you will need to test it yourself. I can't test anymore as I no longer have this game on my HD.

BigKahuna_GS
04-07-2007, 09:57 AM
ICDP Posted
The tests were all done power off, I am going from previous tests conducted with version 4.08. If you think the F4U stall is off then you will need to test it yourself. I can't test anymore as I no longer have this game on my HD.


Hya ICDP,

My point in all this is the most refrenced V-max sea level speed noted by the US Navy
for operational combat Corsairs in "Clean Conditon" including "hook" is 366mph TAS.

The chart you refrenced for both your stall & speed tests for the Corsair is at best speculative.
Unless you have other pages that go into detail about aircraft loadout, gross weight, manifold Hg, etc, etc, etc. There is simply no way to duplicate or know what the testing conditions
your document indicates.

This is the point I have been trying to tell you all along concerning your claim that the Corsair sea level v-max was 355mph--<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">your document does not give any flight test conditions to even claim that this is the correct sea level v-max.</span> Where as there are many official documents indicating a sea level v-max of a 364-370mph speed range with 366mph most often used.

If you go to SpitfirePerformance and look at the stall tests for other aircraft especially the
P38 they are listed in these catagories:

Aircraft gross weight including load out for testing purposes:
Power-On:--Flaps up, Flaps down & Gear down, Flaps Down & Gear up.
Power-Off:--Flaps up, Flaps down & Gear down, Flaps Down & Gear up.

Stall Speeds are listed for each catagory above.

There is no way to be spot on with Corsair stall speeds from either doc because not enough
information is given about <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">the way </span>the flight test was performed.

_

ICDP
04-07-2007, 03:16 PM
You are obviously a very intelligent person and your knowledge of WWII aviation is excellent. I liked IL2 but was getting far too involved in aircraft performance rather than the actual enjoyment of the game. When I did try to play the game for what it was it came up short in all of the important areas that involve FUN. Eventually I removed the game from my HD and haven't even remotely regreted it. I visit the forums to pass some time and nothing more. IL2 is only a game and is not worth giving a **** about in any way shape or form. Even two minutes worth of time testing speeds/climb or other such nonsense in this game are two minutes wasted.

If testing speeds etc is important to you then knock yourself out. IMHO doing so is a complete waste of time.

Take care.

BigKahuna_GS
04-07-2007, 07:19 PM
ICDP-You are obviously a very intelligent person and your knowledge of WWII aviation is excellent. I liked IL2 but was getting far too involved in aircraft performance rather than the actual enjoyment of the game. When I did try to play the game for what it was it came up short in all of the important areas that involve FUN.


Hya ICDP,
I know the feeling of getting too wrapped up in the aircraft specs and performance in IL2 and losing sight of just having fun despite the inaccuracies (some that are glaring--lack of torque effect at slow speed/high AoA). I have been testing and collecting docs for the last 2.5 years for this sim. I have had a personal intrest in the US Navy and PTO because my dad flew these aircraft in WW2. He was a 30year career Marine Corp pilot who served in WW2, Korea and almost Viet Nam. During his career he was also a test pilot and flew many of the Navy's hottest prop & jet fighters.

The Corsair was easy to overboost to 65"Hg on standard 130grade av fuel. The performance boost was pretty good looking at the P51B vs F4U-1 flight tests for example. The pilot can control the manifold boost pressure, prop rpm range, auto rich setting, throttle setting thru the "gate". Can't think of one combat who would back off the throttle in fear of blowing the engine when being chased on the deck by bandits. That being said the Corsair should be one of the fastest
fighters on the deck in the PTO and when in WEP mode should not be getting run down and caught easily from behind by any japanese fighters including the Ki84. But that is excatly what the Ki84 can do--chase down and easily catch the Corsair from behind. According to many Corsair pilots including my dad that would not happen and is not an accurate scenario. That is an area
as you can tell that has really bothered me because the Corsair is too slow on the deck and
is getting unhistorically run down from behind.

Well if I start thinking about all the issues that are modeled wrong, I can start to lose intrest in this sim, and it starts to become unenjoyable. I try to keep the proper perspective
that IL2 in some areas is sometimes a best guess as the overall plane set competativeness is trying to be maintained. In other words even though IL2 is very good in many areas, it can
be equally as bad in other areas--so just have fun with it!

Hope you come back to enjoying this sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-08-2007, 04:21 PM
Big K

check your PMs

BSS_Vidar
04-09-2007, 12:32 AM
This is a great thread if you are worried about the horzontal dash speed of the Hellcat. While it is a bit slow in the flat run, my biggest concerns about the Hellcat is its virticle speed performance.

The 2000 Hp power-house on this airplane allowed it to dominate the Zero in both a dive, and the climb. The Zeke should stall in the climb well befor the Hellcat bleeds off any significant airspeed. It would literaly eat up the Zero if it decided to try to loop over the Hellcat.

In-game, the Hellcat tends to loose energy a bit too soon in the zoom-climb. While it wasn't the fastest plane in a flat run, its massive power and high wing-loading allowed the Hellcat to perform in the virticle much better than what we're seeing in-game.

This coupled with the Zero's ability to maintain some roll control above 200kts, and pitch control above 250kts while in a high-speed dive does not allow you to fly authentic tactics which should work against the Zeke. Rudder is the ONLY effective flight control on the Zeke in high speed dives above 200kts.

The Hellcat plain-ol' runs out of gas in the virticle against the Zeke when it shouldn't. And at more times than not, gets run down by a Zeke (M3 and above) chasing it in a dive.

ICDP
04-09-2007, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
This is a great thread if you are worried about the horzontal dash speed of the Hellcat. While it is a bit slow in the flat run, my biggest concerns about the Hellcat is its virticle speed performance.

The 2000 Hp power-house on this airplane allowed it to dominate the Zero in both a dive, and the climb. The Zeke should stall in the climb well befor the Hellcat bleeds off any significant airspeed. It would literaly eat up the Zero if it decided to try to loop over the Hellcat.

In-game, the Hellcat tends to loose energy a bit too soon in the zoom-climb. While it wasn't the fastest plane in a flat run, its massive power and high wing-loading allowed the Hellcat to perform in the virticle much better than what we're seeing in-game.

This coupled with the Zero's ability to maintain some roll control above 200kts, and pitch control above 250kts while in a high-speed dive does not allow you to fly authentic tactics which should work against the Zeke. Rudder is the ONLY effective flight control on the Zeke in high speed dives above 200kts.

The Hellcat plain-ol' runs out of gas in the virticle against the Zeke when it shouldn't. And at more times than not, gets run down by a Zeke (M3 and above) chasing it in a dive.

You have posted this opinion before. I am not trying to be condescending or confrontational but each time you post these opinions you are presented with facts that don't support your findings. Here are some more facts based on real life reports that I hope will help to clarify the relative proformance of the F6F-5 v the A6M5. Also try to remember that the Zero's controls became very stiff above 200kts, they did not freeze completly which is what you seem to believe. Even the report doesn't claim the A6M5's ailerons locked up completely. One thing to bare in mind is that the A6M5 tested seems to be underperforming.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/TAIC_A6M5_p2.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/TAIC_A6M5.jpg

Note the following from the report. Both statements are in captital letter as a warning.

"The following tactics are suggested for use against the Zeke 52 by the F5F-5:

DO NOT DOG-FIGHT WITH THE ZEKE 52.

DO NOT TRY TO FOLLOW A LOOP OR HALF ROLL WITH PULL-THROUGH.

When attacking use your superior power and high speed performance to engage at the most favourable moment.

To evade a Zeke 52 on your tail, roll and dive away in a high speed turn."

So from the above we can deduce that it was foolish to try to dogfight against the A6M5 in an F6F-5. Looping with the A6M5 was also advised against and would result in the Zeke getting behind you. In fact the F6F-5 didn't have parity in turnrate over the A6M5 until 30,000ft! Diving had to be combined with a roll to keep out of the Zeke's guns.

This is taken from a TAIC document where a captured A6M5 (that was underperforming) is compared to various US fighters. It is a real eye opener and is the sole reason I learned to question peoples over reliance on pilot reports. For example a pilot will state "I accelerated rapidly away in a dive" etc. Even the TAIC report uses such dramatic phrases when in reality the time taken to get out of gun range was extreme. For example in the TAIC report it states.

"10,000ft: The run was begun from 200(mph) IAS. One minute after the application of full power, the P-38J was approximately 300 yards ahead.". The P38 was one of the best US fighter for acceleration and it still was well inside gun range of the A6M5 for a full minute. Lets look at the dive acceleration of the much vaunted P47D compared to the A6M5. The same TAIC report states. "10,000ft: The P-47D was approximately 100 yards ahead 30 seconds after the beginning of the dive". 30 seconds! is it serious, it can't possibly be correct! No way the P47 should have been miles away by then!.

As an experiment count to one minute and imagine that all that time an A6M5 zero is behind you trying to kill you. One minute is a very long time to be inside someones gun range don't you think. The entire report is full of these little eye openers. It shows that peoples expectations in IL2 are not even close to realistic.

Edit: Download link for full TAIC report.

http://www.sharebigfile.com/file/137825/TAICzero-zip.html

Clearly this report refutes all your points posted above. If you still believe the F6F should easily outfight the A6M5 in the vertical after reading this report then there is no amount of data that will sway your beliefs. The F6F-5 was a superior fighter than the A6M5 but it was only so at higher speeds and clearly not in hard manouevers at lower-mid speeds.

JtD
04-09-2007, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
"10,000ft: The run was begun from 200(mph) IAS. One minute after the application of full power, the P-38J was approximately 300 yards ahead.".
.
.
"10,000ft: The P-47D was approximately 100 yards ahead 30 seconds after the beginning of the dive".

No way, P-47 and P-38 are US planes. They won the war!!!!

p.s. Downloaded the file, says the zip is broken? Anything special about it?

JtD
04-09-2007, 08:54 AM
So downloading the zip works for you?

ICDP
04-09-2007, 09:09 AM
Sorry guys my first link to the TAIC report is not working (broken zip). Try the following link instead, I have tested it and it works fine.

http://dl2.ohshare.com/v/6699634/1TAICzero.pdf.html

The test realy does make you think. For example the P51D after a zoom climb from a level flight was only 300ft above and ahead of the Zero. That is only 91 metres and is infact at perfect shooting distance! As speed increased the advantage obvioulsy improved but even from a shallow dive and zoom the P51D was only 500ft (152m) ahead of the Zero. A 30-40mph speed advantage can be lost in a very short time and doesn't amount to much in a dogfight.

Some people actually think simply pointing the nose down in the heavier fighters got you out of danger in a few seconds. The reality is it could take a very long time to get out of gunrange, even against the much maligned Zero.

JtD
04-09-2007, 10:26 AM
Thanks, very interesting. I would have liked to know which dive angle they used and also would have liked to see zoom climbs from higher speeds.

Still, very interesting.

But what if the Zeros pilot would have started a steep climb instead of just evading the attacking planes?

ICDP
04-09-2007, 10:54 AM
It is indeed interesting JtD, it really was an eye opener when I first read it a while back. As you say the dive angle is only mentioned as being shallow but that is more than enough to get the idea. Basically the report confirms what everyone with sense already knows... stay fast and don't dogfight against the more agile opponents. The fact is that the performance gap in zooms and quick dives some people are expcecting just wasn't there. The report specifically outlines that the best tactic against the A6M5 was to extend in a shallow dive and then when outside range to climb at high speed. If you try to turn towards the attack before getting plenty of distance the Zero would get on your tail. If you extend then make repeated attacks while maintaining your advantage the Zero's only defence was to keep evading and take snapshots.

Frankly if anyone tries to mix it up with an A6M5 in his F6F-5 in a slow speed dogfight then they are asking to get shot down.

Does any of this ring true online? Don't bother answering, it was a rhetorical question http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BM357_Sniper
04-09-2007, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
This is a great thread if you are worried about the horzontal dash speed of the Hellcat. While it is a bit slow in the flat run, my biggest concerns about the Hellcat is its virticle speed performance.

The 2000 Hp power-house on this airplane allowed it to dominate the Zero in both a dive, and the climb. The Zeke should stall in the climb well befor the Hellcat bleeds off any significant airspeed. It would literaly eat up the Zero if it decided to try to loop over the Hellcat.

In-game, the Hellcat tends to loose energy a bit too soon in the zoom-climb. While it wasn't the fastest plane in a flat run, its massive power and high wing-loading allowed the Hellcat to perform in the virticle much better than what we're seeing in-game.

This coupled with the Zero's ability to maintain some roll control above 200kts, and pitch control above 250kts while in a high-speed dive does not allow you to fly authentic tactics which should work against the Zeke. Rudder is the ONLY effective flight control on the Zeke in high speed dives above 200kts.

The Hellcat plain-ol' runs out of gas in the virticle against the Zeke when it shouldn't. And at more times than not, gets run down by a Zeke (M3 and above) chasing it in a dive.

You have posted this opinion before. I am not trying to be condescending or confrontational but each time you post these opinions you are presented with facts that don't support your findings. Here are some more facts based on real life reports that I hope will help to clarify the relative proformance of the F6F-5 v the A6M5. Also try to remember that the Zero's controls became very stiff above 200kts, they did not freeze completly which is what you seem to believe. Even the report doesn't claim the A6M5's ailerons locked up completely. One thing to bare in mind is that the A6M5 tested seems to be underperforming.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/TAIC_A6M5_p2.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/TAIC_A6M5.jpg

Note the following from the report. Both statements are in captital letter as a warning.

"The following tactics are suggested for use against the Zeke 52 by the F5F-5:

DO NOT DOG-FIGHT WITH THE ZEKE 52.

DO NOT TRY TO FOLLOW A LOOP OR HALF ROLL WITH PULL-THROUGH.

When attacking use your superior power and high speed performance to engage at the most favourable moment.

To evade a Zeke 52 on your tail, roll and dive away in a high speed turn."

So from the above we can deduce that it was foolish to try to dogfight against the A6M5 in an F6F-5. Looping with the A6M5 was also advised against and would result in the Zeke getting behind you. In fact the F6F-5 didn't have parity in turnrate over the A6M5 until 30,000ft! Diving had to be combined with a roll to keep out of the Zeke's guns.

This is taken from a TAIC document where a captured A6M5 (that was underperforming) is compared to various US fighters. It is a real eye opener and is the sole reason I learned to question peoples over reliance on pilot reports. For example a pilot will state "I accelerated rapidly away in a dive" etc. Even the TAIC report uses such dramatic phrases when in reality the time taken to get out of gun range was extreme. For example in the TAIC report it states.

"10,000ft: The run was begun from 200(mph) IAS. One minute after the application of full power, the P-38J was approximately 300 yards ahead.". The P38 was one of the best US fighter for acceleration and it still was well inside gun range of the A6M5 for a full minute. Lets look at the dive acceleration of the much vaunted P47D compared to the A6M5. The same TAIC report states. "10,000ft: The P-47D was approximately 100 yards ahead 30 seconds after the beginning of the dive". 30 seconds! is it serious, it can't possibly be correct! No way the P47 should have been miles away by then!.

As an experiment count to one minute and imagine that all that time an A6M5 zero is behind you trying to kill you. One minute is a very long time to be inside someones gun range don't you think. The entire report is full of these little eye openers. It shows that peoples expectations in IL2 are not even close to realistic.

Edit: Download link for full TAIC report.

http://www.sharebigfile.com/file/137825/TAICzero-zip.html

Clearly this report refutes all your points posted above. If you still believe the F6F should easily outfight the A6M5 in the vertical after reading this report then there is no amount of data that will sway your beliefs. The F6F-5 was a superior fighter than the A6M5 but it was only so at higher speeds and clearly not in hard manouevers at lower-mid speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm missing your point. Everything that is noted in that report says that ANY advantage the zeke had was at slow speeds and under 10,000 feet.

Vidar is talking about speeds over 200 and the fact that he and I both have zekes performing multiple loops at 18,000 feet while we're stalling out after initially starting at the same speeds.

Again, under 10k and 175 mph. Anything over that the Hellcat should have the advantage and doesn't in this sim.

JtD
04-09-2007, 12:54 PM
In fact it says that the Zeke held a turning advantage up to 30.000 feet and a climb advantage up to 14.000 feet, both of which is higher than 10.000. And please note that the IAS stated is in knots, not mph. That's about 230 mph IAS and 310 mph TAS at 18.000 feet.

ICDP
04-09-2007, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:

I'm missing your point. Everything that is noted in that report says that ANY advantage the zeke had was at slow speeds and under 10,000 feet.

Vidar is talking about speeds over 200 and the fact that he and I both have zekes performing multiple loops at 18,000 feet while we're stalling out after initially starting at the same speeds.

Again, under 10k and 175 mph. Anything over that the Hellcat should have the advantage and doesn't in this sim.

Lets take Vidars points one at a time. He is obviously talking about close in dogfight in the vertical against the A6M5.


Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
The 2000 Hp power-house on this airplane allowed it to dominate the Zero in both a dive, and the climb.

The TAIC report states that the F6F-5 and Zero had equal initial dive dive acceleration. So unless you are diving for prolonged periods you will not outdive the Zero. As showed the P47D took 30 seconds just to gain 100 yards distance on the Zero. It stands to reason the F6F is going to be worse since it ranked lower in initial dive acceleration to the P47D! The climb to 20,00ft for the F6F-5 and the A6M5 was very similar so no advantage there either.


Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:The Zeke should stall in the climb well befor the Hellcat bleeds off any significant airspeed. It would literaly eat up the Zero if it decided to try to loop over the Hellcat.

As shown in the report the F6F-5 was only slightly superior to the Zero in a zoom climb after a dive. When doing this from similar speeds in level flight their will be no advantage. The report also states in capital letters that the F6F-5 should not attempt to follow the Zero in a loop.


Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
In-game, the Hellcat tends to loose energy a bit too soon in the zoom-climb. While it wasn't the fastest plane in a flat run, its massive power and high wing-loading allowed the Hellcat to perform in the virticle much better than what we're seeing in-game.

The F6F-5 was a verly large and dragy aircraft, while it had decent climb it was certainly nothing special. Again the report states it was only slightly superior to the A6M5 in the zoom even after a dive!. So sustained climbs are not a good tactic against the Zero.


Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
This coupled with the Zero's ability to maintain some roll control above 200kts, and pitch control above 250kts while in a high-speed dive does not allow you to fly authentic tactics which should work against the Zeke. Rudder is the ONLY effective flight control on the Zeke in high speed dives above 200kts.

Wrong again, the report states the controls became "very stiff" above 250mph IAS. It doesn't remotely mention that the A6M5 couldn't even roll abve 200kts and that the only effective control was its rudder. Yes it was hard to roll above 250mph but it wasn't locked either.


Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
The Hellcat plain-ol' runs out of gas in the virticle against the Zeke when it shouldn't. And at more times than not, gets run down by a Zeke (M3 and above) chasing it in a dive.

Once again I refer to the fact that the F6F-5 and A6M5 have very equal climb until around 20,000ft. Below 14,00ft the A6M5 has an advantage and above this the F6F-5 has the advantage. Also unless the dive is prolonged and the F6F-5 was using it superior roll it is a sitting duck while trying to outdive an A6M5. If you attempt to dive a way in a nice shallow straight dive the A6M5 has a very good shot for well over 30 seconds.

None of the points I have made are my opinions, they are facts as tested and documented by official US testing agencies. Every one of Vidar's points have been proved to be false or exagerrated based on the TAIC report based on an underperforming A6M5 Zero. Also I suggest you read the report again because you oviously missed the part where they stated the A6M5 had superior turn versus the F6F-5 until 30,000 where they were equal. That is 20,000ft over your figure of 10,000ft that you must have pulled out of thin air.

You either can't accept or won't accept the findings from the report. If you refuse to believe what real pilots flying these real aircraft in real tests have documented in the report then no amount of proof I present will change your opinion. Unless you are open to the prospect of changing your opinion based on irrefutable facts there is no point having this debate.

BSS_Vidar
04-10-2007, 12:54 AM
wow... neat charts.

Most of it looks pretty accurate too. However, some of it is contrary to Corkey Myer's accounts of test flying the captured M5 vs several U.S. Aircraft in 1944. (The captured M2 had long been eaten up by a prop -on the ground- by a nugget in a P-47.) Look for his article in the latest issue of WWII Aircraft.

Quote: "Past 200 kts in a dive, the Zeke is severly hampered in roll-rate. At 250 kts, the Zeke's stick feels like it's stuck in a bucket of Cement. However, rudder is fully effective at any speed."

Also, serveral accounts of Hellcat pilots state they beat the Zeke easily in the virticle. Any Zeke pilot using the virticle climb (as they did very successfuly against the F4F Wildcat) got their clocks cleaned when they tried it agaist a Hellcat.

Nobody is saying the Hellcat can out turn the Zeke in the horizontal, especially me. All the charts is smuggy black print won't change that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ICDP
04-10-2007, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
wow... neat charts.

Most of it looks pretty accurate too. However, some of it is contrary to Corkey Myer's accounts of test flying the captured M5 vs several U.S. Aircraft in 1944. (The captured M2 had long been eaten up by a prop -on the ground- by a nugget in a P-47.) Look for his article in the latest issue of WWII Aircraft.

Quote: "Past 200 kts in a dive, the Zeke is severly hampered in roll-rate. At 250 kts, the Zeke's stick feels like it's stuck in a bucket of Cement. However, rudder is fully effective at any speed."

Also, serveral accounts of Hellcat pilots state they beat the Zeke easily in the virticle. Any Zeke pilot using the virticle climb (as they did very successfuly against the F4F Wildcat) got their clocks cleaned when they tried it agaist a Hellcat.

Nobody is saying the Hellcat can out turn the Zeke in the horizontal, especially me. All the charts is smuggy black print won't change that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Do you have a link to the full report of Corky Myer's tests?. Obviously the more printed test data we can find the better. I fail to see how Corky's statement contradicts the TAIC report findings. The TAIC report clearly indicates that the A6M5 has very poor rollrate over 250mph IAS. Clearly this is in agreement with Corky's quote, not contrary to it! The A6M (type not given) had a rollrate of 35 degrees per second at 330mph IAS. This is above 250kts, the speed you seem to expect the Zero to have no roll whatsoever.

I have already said that the A6M5 should have very poor rollrate at speeds over 200kts IAS and indeed the test show this to be the case. The ingame A6M5 has a very poor rollrate at speeds over 250mph taking 12 seconds for a complete roll. 30 degrees per second to me is very poor and matches the test descriptions quite well as in stiff but not locked. I find the F6F-5 to be a better fighter than the A6M5 but certainly nowhere near the stall such as in a sustained climb. The A6M5 has a lower best climb speed and will easily catch the F6F in such a climb. So unless you engage with a substantial speed advantage the A6M5 will not stall before you in your F6F. Any kind of loop or spiral climb is going to get you into a lot of trouble against the A6M5.

The TAIC report supports these findings and I will go with a full printed test report rather than pilot accounts. The TAIC report was conducted under controlled and known conditions. The Aircraft conditions, the pilot skills and the flight conditions (speed,power weight etc) were all known during the tests. Pilot accounts do not give any indications of these kind of details. Most pilot reports don't even give speeds or altitudes of the engagements. Let alone the condition of the enemy aircraft or the experience of its pilot. I remember reading an F2A pilot account that stated the top level speed of the Zeke (A6M2) was over 400mph. This is an example of how inaccurate pilot accounts can be. Pilot account tell us very little of respective aircraft performance. Unless they detail speeds, alts and conditions of pilot and machines how can they give us an accurate indications of relative aircraft performance.

One report such as the TAIC test results is worth thousands of undetailed pilot reports that say nothing other than, "I outclimbed the Zeke easily in my Hellcat". What version of Zeke was it? What condition was the Zeke in, was it full of fuel or damaged? Was the Zeke pilot at full power? What were the respective speeds of both aircraft? How skilled was the Zeke pilot? At what altitude did the engagement take place? Without answers to all of these question the account means nothing other than on that particular occassion the Hellcat outclimbed a Zeke.

BM357_Sniper
04-11-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:


The TAIC report supports these findings and I will go with a full printed test report rather than pilot accounts. The TAIC report was conducted under controlled and known conditions.

One report such as the TAIC test results is worth thousands of undetailed pilot reports that say nothing other than, "I outclimbed the Zeke easily in my Hellcat".

Corky Meyers test flights were just that, documented test flights under controlled conditions. The pilot reports we are talking about support his test findings. It really burns me up that the only thing people in here take into account are pieces of paper. Then again, most people in here are just monitor jockey's. I sincerly don't mean that as flaming, but pilot accounts can not and should not just be thrown aside.

As far as getting a copy of his findings, I have to reorder the book and have done so and will report back here with the results. S!

ICDP
04-11-2007, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:


The TAIC report supports these findings and I will go with a full printed test report rather than pilot accounts. The TAIC report was conducted under controlled and known conditions.

One report such as the TAIC test results is worth thousands of undetailed pilot reports that say nothing other than, "I outclimbed the Zeke easily in my Hellcat".

Corky Meyers test flights were just that, documented test flights under controlled conditions. The pilot reports we are talking about support his test findings. It really burns me up that the only thing people in here take into account are pieces of paper. Then again, most people in here are just monitor jockey's. I sincerly don't mean that as flaming, but pilot accounts can not and should not just be thrown aside.

As far as getting a copy of his findings, I have to reorder the book and have done so and will report back here with the results. S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Sniper, if you know the name or ISBN of the book could you let me know. It sounds like it would make a great read.

Unfortunately the only thing most of us can go on are pieces of paper. Pilot accounts can give a general approximation and are by no means useless but many times pilot accounts condradict each other. They can't all be correct, actually scratch that, they can ALL be correct and that is the problem. For example I have on many occassions read forum posts with people complaining they couldn't outdive a Bf109 in a P51. I can honestly say I have never been caught in a dive by a Bf109 while flying a P51 in the sim. So who is right in this case? The funny thing is we both are, this is one of the problems with pilot accounts.

There is so much information missing from the majority of pilot accounts that making a valid conclusion is impossible. Documented test reports give much more detailed and controlled results and therefore make it much easier to get a valid conclusion.

BM357_Sniper
04-11-2007, 09:36 PM
0
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:


The TAIC report supports these findings and I will go with a full printed test report rather than pilot accounts. The TAIC report was conducted under controlled and known conditions.

One report such as the TAIC test results is worth thousands of undetailed pilot reports that say nothing other than, "I outclimbed the Zeke easily in my Hellcat".

Corky Meyers test flights were just that, documented test flights under controlled conditions. The pilot reports we are talking about support his test findings. It really burns me up that the only thing people in here take into account are pieces of paper. Then again, most people in here are just monitor jockey's. I sincerly don't mean that as flaming, but pilot accounts can not and should not just be thrown aside.

As far as getting a copy of his findings, I have to reorder the book and have done so and will report back here with the results. S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Sniper, if you know the name or ISBN of the book could you let me know. It sounds like it would make a great read.

Unfortunately the only thing most of us can go on are pieces of paper. Pilot accounts can give a general approximation and are by no means useless but many times pilot accounts condradict each other. They can't all be correct, actually scratch that, they can ALL be correct and that is the problem. For example I have on many occassions read forum posts with people complaining they couldn't outdive a Bf109 in a P51. I can honestly say I have never been caught in a dive by a Bf109 while flying a P51 in the sim. So who is right in this case? The funny thing is we both are, this is one of the problems with pilot accounts.

There is so much information missing from the majority of pilot accounts that making a valid conclusion is impossible. Documented test reports give much more detailed and controlled results and therefore make it much easier to get a valid conclusion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me first apologize for coming across the way I did.

One thing I'd like to point out is that Corky Meyers was not only a test pilot, but an engineer as well. Now, If it were one or the other I'd take the pilot's word over the engineer, but this is a special case. In his book "Corky Meyer's flight journal", chapter 15 is on the zero he conducted test flights in. He was a civilian test pilot and flew pretty much everything of the day. Maybe you can look up a little information, but what we're looking for is in the book and I will have that soon.

Also, I understand what you're saying about pilot accounts, however, when its more than one or ten or 50, there must be some truth to it.

ICDP
04-12-2007, 10:36 AM
You are indeed correct Sniper. I just re-read my post and I should have said "making a valid conclussion is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">almost</span> impossible". Of course if many pilot accounts state something then it should be taken as a gerneral rule but it doesn't make it an unalterable truth. I think a lot of people on this forum simply read a pilot account and get upset if they can't emulate that account every single time they fly online. It is the same with test reports, we can rely too much in those also. The problem with pilot accounts and test reports is that people either can't or won't interperate them correctly. I have been guilty of this in the past myself.

AKA_TAGERT
04-12-2007, 12:54 PM
At what altitudes did the F6F real test data show the pilot switching the SC from..

1st --> 2nd @ alt?
2nd --> 3rd @ alt?

And does any of the real test data provide the best ROC climb speed? I see it touched on in the doc that ICDP provided.. 130knots.. but was that true for both versions?

Thanks in advance

R_Target
04-12-2007, 03:58 PM
Pilot's Operating Instructions say 130 knots, 52.5" MAP for high power climb for both versions.

AKA_TAGERT
04-12-2007, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Pilot's Operating Instructions say 130 knots, 52.5" MAP for high power climb for both versions.
Thanks R_Target! But.. does it specify at what alt the SC should be switched? I guess we could figure it out from the ROC charts, but I was hoping for something in black and white to reference to.

R_Target
04-12-2007, 04:35 PM
Yup. Low Blower at 7000ft., High Blower at 22,000ft, 49.5" MAP. These are the 30 minute Military Power ratings.

AKA_TAGERT
04-12-2007, 06:35 PM
Thanks R_Target!

AKA_TAGERT
04-13-2007, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Yup. Low Blower at 7000ft., High Blower at 22,000ft, 49.5" MAP. These are the 30 minute Military Power ratings. Hey R_Target!

I was looking at the real world data over at mikes and found this..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-42633-b.pdf

It is one of the few COMBAT power reports I can find, other than the JV244 report. But I like this one because it covers a wider range of altitudes!

Reason I bring this up is that it appears that they switched the SC as follows

LO @ 9,500ft
HI @ 14,500

Note I am looking at the 32.8 carburetor impatc pressure test (see RESULTS OF TEST B. Climb) that corsponds to the 60MP. The 60MP apears to be the one that Oleg is simulating in that his MP guages read 60MP @ 2700 110% throttle (COMBAT = 110%).

Too bad in that this tests has even higher settings with the max being 64MP+! So not sure why Oleg chose NOT to simulate that version? So to be fair, I want to comp the in-game F6F-3 to the 60MP not the 64MP.

I guess what Iam saying is I want to match the real world test, so I plan on switching the SC at those altitudes instead of the 7k and 22k you mentioned. Do you see any problems with that?

MAILMAN------
04-14-2007, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Yup. Low Blower at 7000ft., High Blower at 22,000ft, 49.5" MAP. These are the 30 minute Military Power ratings.

I have watched the films from Zeno's Warbird Site and taken diligent notes on the power settings for both the F6F-3 Hellcat and the F4U-1 Corsair. I believe that neither of these aircraft had water injection in the film.

Comparing these to our game I have some questions. Do the below terms apply?

supercharger one = neutral blower
supercharger two = low blower
supercharger three = high blower

In the two movies both the Hellcat and Corsair initially climb using the Takeoff or Military power settings of Neutral Blower, 2,700 RPM @ 3,000 FPM at maximum MAP for 5 minutes. They then shift to Normal Power settings of Neutral Blower, 2,550 RPM @ 2,000 FPM and appropriate MAP settings for the aircraft.

The F6F-3 Hellcat, don't have the initial MAP in front of me, climbed at 2,000 FPM in neutral blower. At 5,500 feet MAP dropped, low blower was engaged, 49.5" MAP was maintained @ 2,000 FPM. At 15,400 feet MAP dropped, hight blower was engaged, 49.5" MAP was maintained @ 2,000 FPM. Climb continued to altitude

The F4U-1 Corsair maintained 44" MAP, climbing at 2,000 FPM in neutral blower. At 8,000 feet MAP dropped, low blower was engaged, 48" MAP was maintained @ 2,000 FPM. At 13,500 feet MAP dropped, high blower was engaged, 48" MAP was maintained @ 2,000 FPM. Climb continued to altitude.

The Corsair in our game is spot on with the film when climbing up to 8,000 Feet at 44" MAP and Prop control set to 2,550 RPM. I reach 100% Throttle around 7,500 feet. 44" MAP cannot be maintained any longer @ 8,000 feet without going above 100% throttle (water injection) so I shift to supercharger two, maintain 48" MAP and keep climbing at 2,000 FPM. The difference is that I can maintain the 48" MAP in the game up to around 18,000 feet (rather than the 13,500 feet in the film) where I shift to supercharger three.

Why is there a disparity between your information, the two films and the game settings? Not questioning you, but rather just trying to understand why there are differences.

R_Target
04-14-2007, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Hey R_Target!

I was looking at the real world data over at mikes and found this..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-42633-b.pdf

It is one of the few COMBAT power reports I can find, other than the JV244 report. But I like this one because it covers a wider range of altitudes!

Reason I bring this up is that it appears that they switched the SC as follows

LO @ 9,500ft
HI @ 14,500

Note I am looking at the 32.8 carburetor impatc pressure test (see RESULTS OF TEST B. Climb) that corsponds to the 60MP. The 60MP apears to be the one that Oleg is simulating in that his MP guages read 60MP @ 2700 110% throttle (COMBAT = 110%).

Those alts are surely worth a try, but my guess is the in-game results will be disappointing. In my experience, the best alt for switching SC stage is the lowest altitude that 60" can be attained without the drop in RPM and power that results from running the next stage at too low of an altitude. I get the best results switching at 6000 and 18,000 ft.


Too bad in that this tests has even higher settings with the max being 64MP+! So not sure why Oleg chose NOT to simulate that version? So to be fair, I want to comp the in-game F6F-3 to the 60MP not the 64MP.

Yeah, nice figures for climb and low and mid altitude speeds at 64" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif , but AFAIK it was never used operationally.

Anyway, I just looked at the Specific Engine Flight Chart and it appears to recommend lower alts for SC switch in WEP operation-3000ft for low blower, and 16,000 for high blower. I'll see if I can't get the chart scanned and put it up.
Also, I went ahead and ordered Graham White's R-2800 book, so hopefully there'll be some good info forthcoming.

R_Target
04-14-2007, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by MAILMAN------
I have watched the films from Zeno's Warbird Site and taken diligent notes on the power settings for both the F6F-3 Hellcat and the F4U-1 Corsair. I believe that neither of these aircraft had water injection in the film.

Comparing these to our game I have some questions. Do the below terms apply?

supercharger one = neutral blower
supercharger two = low blower
supercharger three = high blower

In the two movies both the Hellcat and Corsair initially climb using the Takeoff or Military power settings of Neutral Blower, 2,700 RPM @ 3,000 FPM at maximum MAP for 5 minutes. They then shift to Normal Power settings of Neutral Blower, 2,550 RPM @ 2,000 FPM and appropriate MAP settings for the aircraft.

The F6F-3 Hellcat, don't have the initial MAP in front of me, climbed at 2,000 FPM in neutral blower. At 5,500 feet MAP dropped, low blower was engaged, 49.5" MAP was maintained @ 2,000 FPM. At 15,400 feet MAP dropped, hight blower was engaged, 49.5" MAP was maintained @ 2,000 FPM. Climb continued to altitude

The F4U-1 Corsair maintained 44" MAP, climbing at 2,000 FPM in neutral blower. At 8,000 feet MAP dropped, low blower was engaged, 48" MAP was maintained @ 2,000 FPM. At 13,500 feet MAP dropped, high blower was engaged, 48" MAP was maintained @ 2,000 FPM. Climb continued to altitude.

The Corsair in our game is spot on with the film when climbing up to 8,000 Feet at 44" MAP and Prop control set to 2,550 RPM. I reach 100% Throttle around 7,500 feet. 44" MAP cannot be maintained any longer @ 8,000 feet without going above 100% throttle (water injection) so I shift to supercharger two, maintain 48" MAP and keep climbing at 2,000 FPM. The difference is that I can maintain the 48" MAP in the game up to around 18,000 feet (rather than the 13,500 feet in the film) where I shift to supercharger three.

Why is there a disparity between your information, the two films and the game settings? Not questioning you, but rather just trying to understand why there are differences.

MAILMAN, you're correct about the in-game SC stages corresponding to neutral,low, and high blower.
Your data from the training film is similar to the "High Power Climb" procedure in the Pilot's instructions, but the SC switching altitudes are certainly different. I think I have that training film on DVD here, so let me go take a look.

AKA_TAGERT
04-14-2007, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Those alts are surely worth a try, but my guess is the in-game results will be disappointing.
True! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


Originally posted by R_Target:
In my experience, the best alt for switching SC stage is the lowest altitude that 60" can be attained without the drop in RPM and power that results from running the next stage at too low of an altitude. I get the best results switching at 6000 and 18,000 ft.
I did three ROC tests where I left the SC at one setting for the whole climb. The idea being where the ROC crosses is the poinst at which we should switch from one SC setting to the next. Doing that I found that..

SC1 to SC2 @ 5,700ft
SC2 to SC3 @ 16,250ft

Here is the graph so you can see what it is I am talking about.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/MAP/408/F6F-3/ME_00/ROCS.JPG

I dont know if these are the same alts to switch to obtain the best speeds, but my guess is they have to be close to these alts.


Originally posted by R_Target:
Yeah, nice figures for climb and low and mid altitudes at 64" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif , but AFAIK it was never used operationally.
Roger, which is probally the reason Oleg uses to limit it to 60"MP instead of 64"MP. Yet, here is 'real' test data that shows a F6F-3 was capable of running 64"MP.. and it is not good enough to add it. But all we have is 'calculated' 1.98ata Bf-109K-4C3 data and that is good enough to add it?


Originally posted by R_Target:
Anyway, I just looked at the Specific Engine Flight Chart and it appears to recommend lower alts for SC switch in WEP operation-3000ft for low blower, and 16,000 for high blower. I'll see if I can't get the chart scanned and put it up.
Also, I went ahead and ordered Graham White's R-2800 book, so hopefully there'll be some good info forthcoming. Cool! keep us posted!

I am going to add a full write up on the F6F-3 ROC stuff on sunday.. Too late and too tired right now.

NancyBoyOnYer6
04-14-2007, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
Those alts are surely worth a try, but my guess is the in-game results will be disappointing.
True! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


Originally posted by R_Target:
In my experience, the best alt for switching SC stage is the lowest altitude that 60" can be attained without the drop in RPM and power that results from running the next stage at too low of an altitude. I get the best results switching at 6000 and 18,000 ft.
I did three ROC tests where I left the SC at one setting for the whole climb. The idea being where the ROC crosses is the poinst at which we should switch from one SC setting to the next. Doing that I found that..

SC1 to SC2 @ 5,700ft
SC2 to SC3 @ 16,250ft

Here is the graph so you can see what it is I am talking about.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/MAP/408/F6F-3/ME_00/ROCS.JPG

I dont know if these are the same alts to switch to obtain the best speeds, but my guess is they have to be close to these alts.


Originally posted by R_Target:
Yeah, nice figures for climb and low and mid altitudes at 64" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif , but AFAIK it was never used operationally.
Roger, which is probally the reason Oleg uses to limit it to 60"MP instead of 64"MP. Yet, here is 'real' test data that shows a F6F-3 was capable of running 64"MP.. and it is not good enough to add it. But all we have is 'calculated' 1.98ata Bf-109K-4C3 data and that is good enough to add it?


Originally posted by R_Target:
Anyway, I just looked at the Specific Engine Flight Chart and it appears to recommend lower alts for SC switch in WEP operation-3000ft for low blower, and 16,000 for high blower. I'll see if I can't get the chart scanned and put it up.
Also, I went ahead and ordered Graham White's R-2800 book, so hopefully there'll be some good info forthcoming. Cool! keep us posted!

I am going to add a full write up on the F6F-3 ROC stuff on sunday.. Too late and too tired right now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


GEEEEEZZZZZZ,
Not again.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-15-2007, 09:50 AM
Yet another unsatisfied blue customer?

msalama
04-15-2007, 10:17 AM
GEEEEEZZZZZZ, Not again....

Someone actually bothers to do some testing for a change - and let me tell you, that isn't too common around here in spite of all the b1tching & whining - and you've a problem with that?

How strange. Well I blame the parents myself.

VFA-195 Snacky
04-17-2007, 06:09 PM
bump in case there is a chnce to get this corrected.

heywooood
04-17-2007, 06:16 PM
charts schmarts - the damm thing flies like a loaf of wet wonder bread...it 'feeeels' wrong.

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 07:31 PM
Poooooooor Nancy

heywooood
04-17-2007, 07:48 PM
whatevs, chartboy

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 07:52 PM
You poooor thang

heywooood
04-17-2007, 08:07 PM
lol chart thang...chartboy...chartastic Dan...

Gunshi0891
02-15-2011, 11:18 AM
So ..... after all this time .... Were the F6F speeds corrected since ?

thefruitbat
02-15-2011, 12:19 PM
no.

Bremspropeller
02-15-2011, 12:35 PM
Were the F6F speeds corrected since ?

Yes - birdstrikes are now from behind! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Gunshi0891
02-16-2011, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Were the F6F speeds corrected since ?

Yes - birdstrikes are now from behind! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Seems like people have given up ... far too easily ... it's crying shame its FM was never fixed . We are talking about the most important plane of the PTO alongside the Zero


How can we do to change this situation ?

Request Team Daidalos ? well i hope they listen to fair requests and will fix the Hellcat FM bug before integrating other planes , but if i'm asking alone , i doubt it will change anything , we need more people to complain about this serious innacuracy ....

Another solution would be to ask modders to change the F6F FM ? yeah i guess this would be easier , but then it would be offline only and some people would complain it 's not "official" and Oleg sanctionned ...

Please Team Daidalos , i beg you to FIX the Hellcat speeds !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

M_Gunz
02-16-2011, 03:05 PM
The OP shows two sources 10 KTS apart, 280 KTS and 290 KTS. That is over 20 kph difference right there. But WAIt, there's MORE!

In serial production expect 5% difference in examples. What is 5% of 290 KTS? 14.5 KTS! 290 - 14.5 = Whine baby, whine!

What is the accuracy margin GOAL for IL2? Why, 5%!

I know it must be hard to believe but not every of any serial manufactured plane flew to the same performance within 0.1%.


Originally posted by R_Target:
The old thread was lost in the forum crash, so I've reconstituted it.

I'm posting this in hopes of getting the F6F speeds corrected.

Primary sources for F6F speeds include: the postwar "Standard Aircraft Characteristics" testing (available here (http://history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f6f-5.pdf)), a 1943 F6F-3 test by the US Army (availablehere (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-25820.pdf)), a 1944 comparative evaluation between F6F, F4U, and FW 190 (available here (http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm)), a 1944 comparative evaluation against A6M Model 52 (available here (http://home.att.net/%7Ehistoryworld/TAICzero.pd)), as well as documents posted by other participants in the old thread.

First, the results of my testing. All runs were made on the Crimea map at noon, 100% fuel, radiators closed,
elevator and rudder trimmed, full power and WEP, for ~5 minutes after speed and altitude were stabilized. TAS from gauges in no-cockpit view.

Alt.(feet) kph mph knots

SL 521 323 281
3k 521 323 281
5k 516 320 278
7k 518 321 279
9k 530 329 286
10k 541 336 292
12k 554 344 299
14k 571 354 308
15k 579 359 312
16k 585 363 315
18k 593 368 320
20k 611 379 329
22k 619 384 334
25k 615 382 332
30k 591 367 319


Now, the real-life tests:

From Navaer Standard Aircraft Characteristics test of "F6F-3 and F6F-5 airplanes." Number "2" is Combat power:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9577/graphnomarkha4.gif

US Army 1943 test of an F6F-3 without water injection:

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/8808/f6ff3perf5xy.jpg

From F4U/F6F/FW 190 comparative evaluation. Altitudes are 200ft., 5000ft., 10,000ft., 15,000ft., 20,000ft., 25,000ft.:

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6638/comptestme7.gif

From the TAIC Zeke 52 report:

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1479/taictestcg7.gif

All four of these tests indicate faster speeds than the F6F in IL2/PF. For a rough comparison, I plotted PF performance against
the Navaer graph: PF performance in red:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2983/graphnavaerkh6.gif

F4U/FW 190 evaluation test results in green:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/822/graphnavf4f6190ps1.gif

I didn't attempt to graph the results from the Zeke 52 report because only the top speed is given; all other results
are in comparison to the Zeke which was not equipped with water injection. Please note that I don't consider my
additions to the Navaer chart as exact, although I think it gives a fair approximation.

Also note that the Navaer test was performed on a "second line fighter and trainer":

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/4875/2ndline2jh.jpg

And that that the engine in the Navaer test is only rated at 2,030HP at SL

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/286/hpf6fnav4ot.jpg

Whereas the F6F-5 with R2800-10W is rated at 2250HP at SL:

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4577/mof6hp4if.jpg

Another data sheet showing F6F-5 top speeds with 2250HP at SL :

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/3808/alliedchrt6ak.jpg

Listing of F6F engines and HP from Francis Dean's America's 100,00

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/9526/scan7pn.jpg

My conclusion is that, at most altitudes, the PF Hellcat is performing below the levels of the lowest performing
tests (Navaer "Standard Aircraft Characteristics") I could find. Also please note that the Navaer test is a postwar
test and shows a lower HP rating than a wartime F6F-5 with water injection system, and that the weight indicated is approximately 300lbs. heavier than other sources.

Hopefully this issue can be addressed.

R_Target
02-16-2011, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The OP shows two sources 10 KTS apart, 280 KTS and 290 KTS. That is over 20 kph difference right there. But WAIt, there's MORE!

In serial production expect 5% difference in examples. What is 5% of 290 KTS? 14.5 KTS! 290 - 14.5 = Whine baby, whine!

What is the accuracy margin GOAL for IL2? Why, 5%!

You may have missed the part from the original (and the original original) thread where I stated "at most altitudes."

I have found a couple more documents since the original thread which was about four years ago. The important one is an F6F5-N "Aircraft Characteristics & Performance" (the precursor to the USN's "Standard Aircraft Characteristics") data sheet from 1944. Yes, it's a night fighter, but the only difference between it and a regular F6F-5 is a big radar on the wing, a scope in the cockpit, and the addition of several hundred pounds. Check our V-Max at 10,000 ft. IL2 is almost 50kph off. Considerably more than 5%. Loading condition "1" is full ammo and internal fuel load and water/meth for the WEP.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/9559/88393531.jpg



I know it must be hard to believe but not every of any serial manufactured plane flew to the same performance within 0.1%.

No, of course not. However, IL2 does not model performance differences between serially produced examples, so this is a moot point.

M_Gunz
02-16-2011, 10:38 PM
No but IL2 has the goal of being within 5% of whatever data that Oleg used for the model they decided on. And that is only their goal and that is for the model they have data.

I can understand presenting data and asking for a change but posts in these threads go to the angry demands, insults and conspiracy stage in under 3 pages if not page 1 or the OP.

You can find how many altitudes where it's out by more than 5%? Loading condition 1, 10k ft, 375 mph? 5% of that is 30 kph.

Maybe keep it reasonable and see what their data says and just possibly someone will change their idea? Because without the reasonable nothing will change as we have seen here over and over. And I can tell you that an appeal to the forum is a great way to raise the noise level to where reasonable can no longer be heard. Smart move is to skip the popularity contest and contact Daidalos instead. You have information for them and maybe they have information for you.

Gunshi0891
02-17-2011, 11:00 AM
R_Target , thank you very much for posting this , it's very much appreciated , your honest contribution and the documents you provided are of a great importance for all those concerned by historical accuracy


Maxx Gunz , imagine just 2 seconds the kind of earthquake magnitude that would rock this community if the Fw-190 was 50 km/h (!!) slower , if the Spitifire was 50KPH (!!) slower , if the 109G was 50km/h slower , stuck at 470 km/H ? It would be a general unrest on forums and hundreds who would desert this sim for good until this get fixed


Now , you say the limit of 5% , yet almost all Axis , British or Russian planes are modelled on the optimistic side with a few arguably beyond the 5% .


Here we are talking about a proper castration for the poor cat , 50kph is huge (especially when the F6F is all about speed ... ) way over 5% , sometimes i wonder if it's not a punishment inflicted on Grummann for what they did trying to milk Pacific Fighters , well i hope not because if this is true then nothing would be changed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


A few years ago , this thread would have had dozens of posters involved , today our community is much smaller , maybe it is high time we unite more and support the fair requests like this one , we're not asking for a new plane or new model , we're just asking for a realistically performing Hellcat in term of speed , nothing more .

I do not know TD or any of its members , so i don't have any "connexion" , yet i don't understand when you say that a community appeal to Team Daidalos on a forum would be bad , why only an "elite" would be able to communicate with them , aren't they there to keep in touch with the community and improve the sim ? isn't the most important quality of a sim its accuracy and FM's ?

Anyways , if somebody with the kind of charts and informations R-Target provided , could contact TD and get listened to , it would be really awesome , if any TD member read this thread , PLEASE TD , have a FAIR look at it , we are waiting since 5 years for that , 5 long years , Thank you very much TD for considering this request .. i still keep the hope .. cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DKoor
02-18-2011, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Gunshi0891:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Were the F6F speeds corrected since ?

Yes - birdstrikes are now from behind! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Seems like people have given up ... far too easily ... it's crying shame its FM was never fixed . We are talking about the most important plane of the PTO alongside the Zero


How can we do to change this situation ?

Request Team Daidalos ? well i hope they listen to fair requests and will fix the Hellcat FM bug before integrating other planes , but if i'm asking alone , i doubt it will change anything , we need more people to complain about this serious innacuracy ....

Another solution would be to ask modders to change the F6F FM ? yeah i guess this would be easier , but then it would be offline only and some people would complain it 's not "official" and Oleg sanctionned ...

Please Team Daidalos , i beg you to FIX the Hellcat speeds !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This board consisting mostly of nancies as TAGERT once ironically noticed is running one following types of fuel:

-Spitfire (most preferably 25lbs)
-P-51
-FW-190
-Bf-109
-.50cals

If you try to discuss something else you likely wont see any charts, any serious discussion and thread will end in 2-3 pages at best.

In all these years I just realized that in spite of being real aviation enthusiasts most people are just too shallow to see anything deeper than most popular stuff. I remember one of my first posts here (it was around 2003) when I asked about some VVS regiments, boards were full and extremely active but there was not a single reply.
When we discussed MiGs, Yaks and several other less popular types it all ended in page or two.

But when I raised Spitfire thread or P-51 thread I literally joked with many of those funny people who just kept on arguing with me and others. Quite funny, lasted more than 20 pages of nothingness which kinda speaks for itself...

M_Gunz
02-18-2011, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Gunshi0891:
Maxx Gunz , imagine just 2 seconds the kind of earthquake magnitude that would rock this community if the Fw-190 was 50 km/h (!!) slower , if the Spitifire was 50KPH (!!) slower , if the 109G was 50km/h slower , stuck at 470 km/H ? It would be a general unrest on forums and hundreds who would desert this sim for good until this get fixed

Imagine if you will German 20mm cannon modeled with the wrong ammo making them weaker by far than they should be....


Now , you say the limit of 5% , yet almost all Axis , British or Russian planes are modelled on the optimistic side with a few arguably beyond the 5% .

Now you're stretching into pure BS and you should know better. Almost all Axis, British or Russian planes my butt!


Here we are talking about a proper castration for the poor cat , 50kph is huge (especially when the F6F is all about speed ... ) way over 5% , sometimes i wonder if it's not a punishment inflicted on Grummann for what they did trying to milk Pacific Fighters , well i hope not because if this is true then nothing would be changed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

DO you have a talk radio show? It's 50 kph at one particular alt according to some chart, not a castration or THE END OF THE WORLD!


A few years ago , this thread would have had dozens of posters involved , today our community is much smaller , maybe it is high time we unite more and support the fair requests like this one , we're not asking for a new plane or new model , we're just asking for a realistically performing Hellcat in term of speed , nothing more .

You're not 'just asking', you're playing Push The Agenda. You mention 'a few years ago' and yet LOOK WHEN THE THREAD STARTED.

How about let up on the hype?

Imagine the most important 20mm the German planes carried being porked? Well it was for two years back when the game was not much older. It took TWO YEARS to get changed. Why? Because of HYPE and WHINE all pointed at other than where the real problem was. When the real problem was found it still took months to get attention because of the non-reasonable NOISE raised by idiots even then making it very hard for reason to get through a door shut on that noise.

I don't know if you've noticed or maybe you haven't been around long enough to notice but raising a stink stops official change in IL2.

IF there's a clear issue big enough and it's not just cherry picked data vs ignored or unknown to the petitioners data -and- there are people who will put in the work even after being insulted directly or indirectly THEN there may be change. But every exaggeration, BS smear and lie built up or thrown lessens any chance of whatever good there might be of being acted upon.
Unwillingness to see where the current official FM comes from constitutes such insult right from the start, you want your 'justice' then you have to give some yourself.

F__k it is HARD to get sense across to those who only see what they want and think that if they just cry louder they can get it. Quit acting like spoiled brats, grow up and accept what you have then maybe your concerns will be heard, but that is no guarantee. If you can't understand that, if you can't understand why then take it as proof that you are still beyond reasonable yourself and perhaps that is why your cries have been dismissed.

I'm not against change. I am just pointing out how and why your approach is not going to work. If you need a physical example then take a bolt or nail, insert it into a hole in a steel plate that is slightly larger than the bolt.. **** the bolt at an angle as far over as it will go and then push as hard as you will saying over and over "stupid bolt, go in the hole!". See how easy that works. Then spend as long as you need thinking about making things worse.

Gunshi0891
02-18-2011, 01:24 PM
M_Gunz , beyond the aggressivity you display , you should ask yourself just two questions if we are to have a constructive debate :

- Is the Hellcat speed correctly modelled in the sim or not ?

If you're honest , answer it

- Will it be more realistic and historically accurate if it is fixed by TD ?

answer it yourself honestly ... we can start from here



Now for the rest , it's 50kph at some altitude , 20-30 km/H at most altitude for a plane based on speed , it's too slow at almost ALL altitudes , look at the charts .

i was here when the 20mm Mauser was weak until PF and was pushing for the change , you say in your post that the "whining" brought a change , but it was actually the fact that such a request was more realistic that what we had , Oleg would never have changed it otherwise , and it was a positive thing that the community made her voice heard , you'll always find a few people go over the top when "whining" as you say , but that doesn't mean the request of the majority is baseless or illegitimate .

Now please replace "whining" with "legitimate request" in your mind and you'll feel much better M_Gunz about this particular plea , it's been 4-5 years we wait for this bug fix , yes it's a long time , maybe it's not important for you , but it is for many people who either love this plane , enjoy the PTO a lot or are just concerned with FM accuracy in the sim , and please understand that using a public forum is the only way for the average user to ask for such a change , if i made a mistake , tell me how could i ask for it differently and help us , don't shoot the messenger , we'd greatly appreciate your help if you could for instance contact TD and make things go forward , i'm not interested in a forum brawl , but i admit after all this time , my patience has been seriously put to test , but i still want to believe that the devs will look at this flaw and try to improve the sim we all love ....

FoolTrottel
02-18-2011, 01:33 PM
Please stop this 'discussion', it won't lead to anything but a mess this way.

Check the sticky thread in this forum, called '4.10 bug report', there's a good chance you'll find some TD members posting in there.

M_Gunz
02-18-2011, 03:04 PM
Thanks Fool. What I wrote gets turned completely around to say the opposite.. let's just leave it that way!